Enough already
Tom Way
Do the Scouts (or anybody, for that matter) honestly believe
that God gives a crap about whether or not its members
believe in Her? Let's be honest and stop anthropomorphizing
the big lug.
If God is up there, she certainly isn't so insecure as to
worry about whether or not some segment of the population
has doubts.
Maybe we all should do a little evolving and move past the
whole organized religion bugaboo that has kept the race at
war for so long, not to mention caused grief for good kids
who only want to belong to a relatively insignificant
organization, and realize that there are much more important
things to worry about.
It's time to be more like God and stop sweating all this dumb
stuff. There's so much good to be done, and so little time.
Regards,
Tom Way
a disgusted former scout
--
-----------------
Thomas P. Way
w...@cis.udel.edu
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
m...@myself.i
Tom Way wrote:
> Do the Scouts (or anybody, for that matter) honestly believe
> that God gives a crap about whether or not its members
> believe in Her? Let's be honest and stop anthropomorphizing
> the big lug.
>
> If God is up there, she certainly isn't so insecure as to
> worry about whether or not some segment of the population
> has doubts.
>
> Maybe we all should do a little evolving and move past the
> whole organized religion bugaboo that has kept the race at
> war for so long, not to mention caused grief for good kids
> who only want to belong to a relatively insignificant
> organization, and realize that there are much more important
> things to worry about.
>
> It's time to be more like God and stop sweating all this dumb
> stuff. There's so much good to be done, and so little time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Way
> a disgusted former scout
>
Tom
This reply is no flame, so if after reading it you feel scorched, then
you misinterpreted. That said:
What makes *you* an authority on the nature of any divine beings which
may or may not govern the universe? How do you *know* god is not some
cosmic Santa Claus, beard and all, sitting on a throne up amongst the
clouds? How can you say (so definitively) whether or not this alleged
god cares if we worship he/she/it?
Of course, you can't. But, if I were an active member of an organized
religion, I would take your comment about "evolving" as an insult. Was
that your intent?
Religion, an invention of Man, has caused both grief and good, as have
all of Man's inventions. Religion is good for children--even if you
choose something other than deism as an adult, it is a generally
accepted principle that 'you must know the rules before you can properly
break them.'
The atheist who declares with absolute surety that "god is dead" shows
themselves to be a zealot of the first magnitude, a direct descendant of
the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their ilk.
If scouting is insignificant, and not worth worrying about...why are
you?
brian_smith
well said and true my friend. YIS Brian
drlewis
I personally feel that if a scout does not want to recite the Oath for that particular reason he simply should find another organization where he would feel more comfortable.
Dave Lewis
Tom Way wrote:
Do the Scouts (or anybody, for that matter) honestly believe
that God gives a crap about whether or not its members
believe in Her? Let's be honest and stop anthropomorphizing
the big lug.
If God is up there, she certainly isn't so insecure as to
worry about whether or not some segment of the population
has doubts.
Maybe we all should do a little evolving and move past the
whole organized religion bugaboo that has kept the race at
war for so long, not to mention caused grief for good kids
who only want to belong to a relatively insignificant
organization, and realize that there are much more important
things to worry about.
It's time to be more like God and stop sweating all this dumb
stuff. There's so much good to be done, and so little time.
Regards,
Tom Way
a disgusted former scout
--
Mathew E Goldstein
me@myself.i wrote:
: The atheist who declares with absolute surety that "god is dead" shows
: themselves to be a zealot of the first magnitude, a direct descendant of
: the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their ilk.
Are the theistic descendents of the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their
ilk being told that they do not qualify to be Eagle Scouts or is it only
the atheists descendents who are being told to take a hike? Why the
double standard?
CzarCasm
Tom Way <w...@eecis.udel.edu> wrote:
> believe in Her? Let's be honest and stop anthropomorphizing
> the big lug.
Her... and lug... hy if you go back to the same book you got
anthropomorphizing from you will find that a lug is always male...
as in lug nut on a car
> Tom Way
> a disgusting former scout
and btw Tom I think I went to school with your sister, No
Mathew E Goldstein
me@myself.i wrote:
: Religion, an invention of Man, has caused both grief and good, as have
: all of Man's inventions. Religion is good for children--even if you
: choose something other than deism as an adult, it is a generally
: accepted principle that 'you must know the rules before you can properly
: break them.'
I suspect that for some people the selective exclusion of non-believers is
more about 'we all must believe, period' than your psuedo-liberal
interpretaion 'religion is for good children'. Nevertheless, let's assume
your interpretation is what BSA policy is all about. Even if you feel so
confident as to speak for other parent's children, should your opinion on
this matter be enforced by edict on the other parent's children? Even
children who are 14? 16? 18? 20? (The age range for career Explorer posts
varies but seems to cluster around 14-20). And why would you want to be
so harsh with a younger child who may, in his own mind, be well-motivated
and just want to be honest about his non-belief?
The example that such community and authority endorsed exclusion
establishes for other children (and for adults) is clear: Non-belief is
anti-American (BSA is a patriotic assoication), non-belief is a character
deficiency (BSA builds ethical and moral character), etc. Some people may
believe this is all true, fine, but you seem to be denying any such
negative implications from the apriori exclusionary policy in order to
qualify yourself as being liberal while still defending the policy. Could
it be that hidden in your argument is a personal bias against non-belief
that is only superficially masked by your unflatering depiction of
religion as 'man made'? And why is it O.K. for you to characterize
religion as 'man made' while declaring the use of the term 'evolve' by the
person on the other side of the argument to be an 'insult'? Are you
suggesting that religions did not originally characterize themselves as
revealing the divine word?
We are talking about accommodating non-believers, not about breaking
rules. No one has any argument with the need to understand and follow the
rules, the issue here is about the propriety of a rule that endorses
biased exclusion of non-believers, no other rules are in dispute. It is
exactly because rules are so important that we should take extra care in
setting the rules so that they are as objective as possible.
m...@myself.i
Matthew,
Although your question is non sequitur, the fact is it's not a "double
standard;" it's a *standard.* The BSA says "Atheists need not apply."
Local enforcement of this policy may vary, as is true of every large
organization, but the standard itself is clear and singular. Your
(assumed on my part) disagreement with the standard in no way 'doubles'
it.
hammer
m...@myself.i
Matthew,
First let me say I'm glad that you don't seem to be a nut, like so many
of the Usenetters who draw me into a discussion.
That said, my short answer to your latest post is, "Huh? What?"
The longer answer follows.
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
>
> me@myself.i wrote:
>
> : Religion, an invention of Man, has caused both grief and good, as have
> : all of Man's inventions. Religion is good for children--even if you
> : choose something other than deism as an adult, it is a generally
> : accepted principle that 'you must know the rules before you can properly
> : break them.'
>
> I suspect that for some people the selective exclusion of non-believers is
> more about 'we all must believe, period' than your psuedo-liberal
> interpretaion 'religion is for good children'.
I must say it's been a while since anyone interpreted the word 'liberal'
as having a definition which includes me! :) And you improperly modify
'exclusion' with 'selective' in the same way that you earlier
incorrectly used the term 'double standard.' There is no 'selective'
exclusion of non-believers, there is *simply* exclusion of (professed)
non-believers. More on this below.
> Nevertheless, let's assume
> your interpretation is what BSA policy is all about. Even if you feel so
> confident as to speak for other parent's children, should your opinion on
> this matter be enforced by edict on the other parent's children? Even
> children who are 14? 16? 18? 20? (The age range for career Explorer posts
> varies but seems to cluster around 14-20). And why would you want to be
> so harsh with a younger child who may, in his own mind, be well-motivated
> and just want to be honest about his non-belief?
>
I made no attempt to speak for other people, or their children. I made
no attempt to speak for the BSA, either, other than as an Eagle Scout
and once-and-future member. (Nor is there need for me to. The BSA has
spoken loudly and clearly their thoughts on this matter.) I would not
intentionally be harsh with any child; in fact, I think all children
have the *right* to religion, just as they have the *right* to Aesop,
the Grimms, Mama Goose, and all the other 'stories' which teach them
about life. The absolute 'facts' of these stories are irrelevant, for
their lessons are immutable. More on this below.
> The example that such community and authority endorsed exclusion
> establishes for other children (and for adults) is clear: Non-belief is
> anti-American (BSA is a patriotic assoication), non-belief is a character
> deficiency (BSA builds ethical and moral character), etc.
Untrue. I forget the exact name of the fallacy you are committing, but
I recognize it nonetheless. BSA is definitely a patriotic organization,
but no one suggests they are the be-all, end-all arbiter of 'what is
patriotic.' IOW, the BSA 'believes' scouts should wear neckerchiefs,
and a scout who "REFUSES" to wear a neckerchief is not enhancing his
chances of becoming an Eagle scout, or even remaining a scout at all.
This does not imply that non-neckerchief-wearing people are unpatriotic.
As to ethical/moral: morals are ethics with a nod to god. Not
believing in god is EITHER immoral or, more accurately, not
appropriately addressed with the term at all. Even if you disagree with
my definition of morals (as many people do), and even given your use of
the term 'ethical,' the BSA policy concerning belief in god only
indicates that an Atheist does not meet the moral/ethical qualifications
TO BE A SCOUT. Incidentally, they do not qualify to be a Roman Catholic
Priest, either. For the purposes of this argument, the two examples are
INDISTINGUISHABLE and I defy you to reasonably posit otherwise.
>Some people may
> believe this is all true, fine, but you seem to be denying any such
> negative implications from the apriori exclusionary policy in order to
> qualify yourself as being liberal while still defending the policy. Could
> it be that hidden in your argument is a personal bias against non-belief
> that is only superficially masked by your unflatering depiction of
> religion as 'man made'?
No. It is not possible, as I cannot in good faith classify myself as a
"believer,"
though I was once and am open to becoming one again some day. And while
"unflattering" is technically apt here, I trust you won't make the
mistake that it means 'derogatory.'
(Liberal! LOL!)
> And why is it O.K. for you to characterize
> religion as 'man made' while declaring the use of the term 'evolve' by the
> person on the other side of the argument to be an 'insult'? Are you
> suggesting that religions did not originally characterize themselves as
> revealing the divine word?
>
? First, I didn't *declare* anything. I *asked* if the term was being
employed as shorthand for something akin to "get your knuckles off the
ground" (which I would indeed take as an insult).
Second, I am not (strictly speaking) 'characterizing' religion as being
man-made any more than I am capable of 'characterizing' the Earth as
being essentially round. These things are patent and self-evident,
beyond the ken you or I to debate.
Third: huh? Of course, all religions--by definition--lay claim to
the inside skinny on divinity and the will/purpose/plan therof. Even
Atheists, loosly defined here as a religion, claim to know the true
nature of divinity (null).
The connective logic of your paragraph eludes me.
> We are talking about accommodating non-believers, not about breaking
> rules. No one has any argument with the need to understand and follow the
> rules, the issue here is about the propriety of a rule that endorses
> biased exclusion of non-believers, no other rules are in dispute. It is
> exactly because rules are so important that we should take extra care in
> setting the rules so that they are as objective as possible.
You contradict yourself, and boldly. You are talking about accomodating
people who break the rules by being non-believers. Rule(believe in god)
+ Belief (there is no god) =broken rule. Surely you must see that this
is incontestible?
The issue here is a rule which rankles people who either do not believe
in god or who feel the BSA has no right to make its own rules, which are
perfectly objective in spite of the fact that they rankle you!
And now, the below part:
Belief in god, belief in country, belief in camping are pretty much the
defining characteristics of scouting (if not necessarily in that
order). ALL aspects of scout law, and the attendant oath, are derived
from these three principles. Any organization which does not adhere to
these principles is NOT a scout troop, even though it wear the
accoutrements of scouting. If a boy can't bear the thought of sleeping
in a tent, his chances of attaining Eagle rank are slim to none. If a
Scout wipes his nose with the US flag (or any nation's flag, frankly) he
again will have little hope of attaining Eagle rank. Do you see where
I'm going?
Why would an organization tolerate violation of its own rules?
Why would someone join an organization whose rules they find abhorrent?
Or allow their child to do so?
Who would dictate to a private organization what its rules should be,
and not lie awake at night for shame?
regards,
hammer
ps ya know this is the very DEFINITION of MOOT!!! :)
Neil Savage
>
>: The atheist who declares with absolute surety that "god is dead" shows
>: themselves to be a zealot of the first magnitude, a direct descendant of
>: the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their ilk.
>
The above is NOT a statement characteristic of your typical atheist.
Atheists are more likely to say things like, "God(s) do not really
exist" or "I don't believe in God as (variously) described in the Bible/
Quran/Torah/whatever."
The only thing that most atheists are absolutely sure about is that
theists have gone to great effort to concoct a lot of fables and myths when
it comes to the nature of "God".
Nobody who ever lived knew anything with absolute surety about the nature
of God. We know only that there is absolutely no INDEPENDENT evidence of
an omnipotent diety. 'God' could be 'collective human LOVE', a figurative
compilation of the awesome powers of nature (modern pantheism), or
something 'other' that is greater than the sum of human spiritually
(mysticism).
What we DO know is that theists have made a lot of detailed assumptions
about "God" that are rationally and logically disprovable.
Atheist do not think they have all the answers to ultimate religious
questions; they are just certain that theists have fared no better at
getting those answers for us.
[I hope this has been helpful in dispelling 'myths' and misperceptions
about atheists - and that we are largely no 'threat' to the BSA.]
- neil
m...@myself.i
Whoa! Nobody said--at least *I* never said-- anything about a 'threat'
to the BSA. Please don't pull out a "homophobia" thing where it is
fashionable to assume that everyone who is 'against' homosexuality is so
due to *fear.* To use my earlier neckerchief analogy, the BSA does not
require scouts to wear neckerchiefs because they are 'afraid' of scouts
without them.
I think you speak in error when you define 'atheist,' but since there is
no official 'atheist' organization I suppose you may define it any way
you choose. Linguistically, however, with the prefix "a-" meaning
"anti" and "theist" meaning, essentially, "god," I shall stand by my
Nietzchesque interpretation. I might suggest that what you describe is
closer to my own current philosophy, which I (loosely, loosely) call
'agnosticism' wherein 'gnost' implies 'knoweledge.' That is, I'm not
comfortable categorizing any possible Divinity. So while I'm not about
to look you up and punch you in the nose, I must reject your definition
of atheism much as I might reject those plucky youths who grafitto the
'symbol' of anarchy on subway cars.
Heisenberg, and others, suggest that we can not truly "know" anything
with absolute surety, in that the act of observation will alter a thing
fundamentally. Any observation of That Which Might Be God must be
understood to have filtered through a human brain with all its twists
and turns. IF you believe the bible (IF), then numerous accounts of
miracles, i.e., god, are reported. Enough people believe the bible, and
it has been around long enough, that it is therefore EVIDENCE of god.
True, it remains for each of us to assign credulity to that evidence,
but in this light the statement 'there is no INDEPENDANT evidence'
implies that there can never be any, for what will constitute
independance?
For my edification: what are some godly assumptions that you can
DISprove?
The (self-styled) atheists I have encountered on Usenet, in real life,
and in the public sector have mostly characterized believers as foolish,
intellectual children who delude themselves with obvious falsehoods.
That is, they are CERTAIN of their belief that 'there is no god.' I
maintain this is the mark of the zealot.
regards,
hammer
going now to see what you say about 'scout pants'!
Vicki Hill
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:33:47 -0500, me@myself.i wrote:
>Enough people believe the bible, and it has been around long enough,
> that it is therefore EVIDENCE of god.
At one point in human history, enough people believed the world was
flat, and certainly that belief had been around long enough. Didn't
make it evidence that the world was flat..
Last time I checked, there were hundreds of millions of people in the
world who were followers of the Hindu religion and of the Buddhist
religion. Those have even been around longer than the bible has been
around.
Nope...no atheist here, but I am a Unitarian-Universalist.
Vicki H.
Arnold Lasris
Any beleif in religion is based on faith. There is no way to prove
anything, nor is there any provable evidence. If a person has faith in
their religion, it doesn't require any proof. They can beleive just
because they do!!!
However, just because someone has faith, I don't appreciate their
efforts to convert me to their religious thinking. I consider any such
efforts as religious abuse. I don't want them to attempt to impose their
beliefs on my activities.
Religious fundlementalists are notorious in trying to impose their
values on others. My religious thinking is diametrically opposed to many
on the religious right.
I've opened my mouth enough for now!
Arnold
Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)
Well I've been looking at this for a while now and am finding it most
interesting... I'd like to make a few thigs clear though before lodging
by foot too deeply in my throat... first of all I'm not a member of BSA,
I'm actually a member of Scouts-Canada, our rules on this issue may be
somewhat more relaxed (I'm not sure as to how well enforced such a rule
is here if it is looked at at all...) Secondly, my religious beleifs...
well I am really undecided... I am not a religious person though I would
not call myself an athiest... I won't say that god does or doesn't
exist...
With that out of the way here's my 2 cents:
hammer wrote:
> Belief in god, belief in country, belief in camping are pretty much the
> defining characteristics of scouting (if not necessarily in that
> order). ALL aspects of scout law, and the attendant oath, are derived
> from these three principles. Any organization which does not adhere to
> these principles is NOT a scout troop, even though it wear the
> accoutrements of scouting. If a boy can't bear the thought of sleeping
> in a tent, his chances of attaining Eagle rank are slim to none. If a
> Scout wipes his nose with the US flag (or any nation's flag, frankly) he
> again will have little hope of attaining Eagle rank. Do you see where
> I'm going?
I disagree with your definition of scouting...
you stated that the three defining characteristics of scouting are as
follows: (I realize I'm doing this backwards to what you said but I
wanted to leave the major one for last)
- belief in camping
I find that this is not and should not be a requirement... no where in
scouting is it mandatory... there are scouts who have earned their Cheif
Scout (The highest award earned by Canadian scouts) and who do not like
camping and may not have attended many camps, yet these scouts are among
some of the true scouts out there, those who live by the scout promise
and law, those who are proud to be scouts and who are always willing to
help out... they have in my opinion defined what it is to be a scout,
yet they have chosen other means of attaining these awards...
- beleif in country
I am a patriotic person and wish more people were however I must agre
with the world scouting movement on this one:
"SCOUTING IS NON-POLITICAL, NON-GOVERNMENTAL
Scouting does not and must not
represent any political party or
organization. Nonetheless, Scouts
are encouraged to make a
constructive contribution to their
community, society and country."
Although scouts are encouraged to make a contribution to their society
and country it is not MANDATORY that they are patriotic.
- beleif in god
again I feel that scouting should be as defined by the world scouting
movement:
"Scouting is open to all, regardless
of race or creed, in accordance
with the purpose, principles and
method conceived by its founder
Robert Baden-Powell."
To me this means that EVERYONE is permitted in scouting and noone should
be excluded on ANY basis.
> Why would an organization tolerate violation of its own rules?
> Why would someone join an organization whose rules they find abhorrent?
> Or allow their child to do so?
I'm not saying that people should break the rules, only that perhapps
this rule is not in the best interest of the scouting organization.
Scouting is not about our differences it is about our similarities.
Scouting allows youth worldwide to learn what is really important in
life, true life skills, the ability to work with others, to help those
in need, and to truely know ones self.
> Who would dictate to a private organization what its rules should be,
> and not lie awake at night for shame?
Any self respecting member of the organization. Scouting is designed to
adapt to the needs of it's members if the organization refuses to listen
to it's members it has failed in it's purpose. Scouting is there for the
youth members and any time we forget this we have failed, we have failed
scouting, we have failed our youth, and we have failed ourselvs.
just my 2cents...
YIS
/\ Roger Heward (Green1) /\
_/\| |/\_ Knights of Cerberus Rover Crew _/\| |/\_
\ / Edgemont 193rd Calgary, Canada \ /
>______< gre...@scout.net ICQ# 55459407 >______<
|| http://home.scout.net/edgemont193 ||
m...@myself.i
Vicki Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:33:47 -0500, me@myself.i wrote:
> >Enough people believe the bible, and it has been around long enough,
> > that it is therefore EVIDENCE of god.
>
> At one point in human history, enough people believed the world was
> flat, and certainly that belief had been around long enough. Didn't
> make it evidence that the world was flat..
>
> Last time I checked, there were hundreds of millions of people in the
> world who were followers of the Hindu religion and of the Buddhist
> religion. Those have even been around longer than the bible has been
> around.
>
> Nope...no atheist here, but I am a Unitarian-Universalist.
>
> Vicki H.
You also missed my point, but I suppose that's my fault as I was not
clear. I didn't intend to suggest that the mass belief of millions was
CREDIBLE evidence. In a court of law, fabrications can be entered into
"evidence" even if the jury later decides to dismiss the evidence. I'm
not a bible-beater, so please understand I was not for a minute
suggesting its infallibility. Minor point, mea culpa, my apologies.
By the way, learned people have known for many thousands of years that
the earth was not flat--as soon as the first ship sailed over the
horizon. Flocks of idiots perhaps thought it was flat, but then today
flocks of idiots believe elvis Presley is alive.
regards,
hammer
m...@myself.i
Arnold Lasris wrote:
> However, just because someone has faith, I don't appreciate their
> efforts to convert me to their religious thinking. I consider any such
> efforts as religious abuse. I don't want them to attempt to impose their
> beliefs on my activities.
>
> Religious fundlementalists are notorious in trying to impose their
> values on others. My religious thinking is diametrically opposed to many
> on the religious right.
>
> I've opened my mouth enough for now!
>
> Arnold
Arn,
I think you've summed the issue up well. The true villains of this
piece are the fundamentalists--including fundamental atheists, not at
all a contradiction of terms--who think they have the right to impose
their religious views on others--such as the BSA. A lot of it comes
from the misguided notion that there is a 'separation of church and
state' built somehow into our government, but fanciful interpretations
of the US Constitution are another topic entirely.
Bravo for your clarity!
regards,
hammer
James K Nelsen
Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1) (gre...@scout.net) wrote:
: - beleif in god
: again I feel that scouting should be as defined by the world scouting
: movement:
: "Scouting is open to all, regardless
: of race or creed, in accordance
: with the purpose, principles and
: method conceived by its founder
: Robert Baden-Powell."
: To me this means that EVERYONE is permitted in scouting and noone should
: be excluded on ANY basis.
Actually, this is where a lot of the controversy comes in. B-P strongly
believed in the religious values in scouting, but no one knows for sure
what he would think of this issue today. That's part of the problem. The
other aspect is that many scout units in the United States are sponsored
by churches or other religious organizations that might not take to kindly
to having atheists among their children.
--
Jim Nelsen ___,
Secondary Education _.-'` __|__
Social Studies/History Major .' ,-:` \;',`'-,
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee / .'-;_,; ':-;_,'.
/ /; '/ , _`.-\
| | '`. (` /` ` \`|
| |:. `\`-. \_ / |
Visit my web page to look at | | ( `, .`\ ;'|
my "Virtual Teaching Portfolio" \ \ | .' `-'/
and find some useful sites for \ `. ;/ .'
social studies teachers. '._ `'-._____.-'`
`-.____|
www.uwm.edu/~jnelsen _____|_____
/___________\
m...@myself.i
Roger,
Yes and no.
Regards,
hammer
i.e.,
Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1) wrote:
>
> Well I've been looking at this for a while now and am finding it most
> interesting... I'd like to make a few thigs clear though before lodging
> by foot too deeply in my throat... first of all I'm not a member of BSA,
> I'm actually a member of Scouts-Canada, our rules on this issue may be
> somewhat more relaxed
Scouts is Scouts. I can speak only of the BSA, but I assume the scout
organizations of like-minded nations are like-minded organizations.
> With that out of the way here's my 2 cents:
>
I kid you when I say this is worth about a penny American!
> hammer wrote:
> > Belief in god, belief in country, belief in camping are pretty much the
> > defining characteristics of scouting (if not necessarily in that
> > order). ALL aspects of scout law, and the attendant oath, are derived
> > from these three principles. Any organization which does not adhere to
> > these principles is NOT a scout troop, even though it wear the
> > accoutrements of scouting.
> I disagree with your definition of scouting...
> you stated that the three defining characteristics of scouting are as
> follows: (I realize I'm doing this backwards to what you said but I
> wanted to leave the major one for last)
>
> - belief in camping
> I find that this is not and should not be a requirement... no where in
> scouting is it mandatory... there are scouts who have earned their Cheif
> Scout (The highest award earned by Canadian scouts) and who do not like
> camping and may not have attended many camps, yet these scouts are among
> some of the true scouts out there, those who live by the scout promise
> and law, those who are proud to be scouts and who are always willing to
> help out... they have in my opinion defined what it is to be a scout,
> yet they have chosen other means of attaining these awards...
>
Hmm. yes, I know some rules have been relaxed as regards merit badges.
But frankly, with allowances only for scouts with very specific
disabilities, a scout who cannot build a fire in the rain etc. is not
much of a scout in my eyes. We simply disagree. Outdoorsmanship is
fundamental to scouting.
> - beleif in country
> Although scouts are encouraged to make a contribution to their society
> and country it is not MANDATORY that they are patriotic.
>
The scout oath clearly, unequivocably, inarguably says otherwise.
> - beleif in god
> again I feel that scouting should be as defined by the world scouting
> movement:
> "Scouting is open to all, regardless
> of race or creed,
> To me this means that EVERYONE is permitted in scouting and noone should
> be excluded on ANY basis.
>
Again I would suggest the oath addresses this, except that "god" is a
much more nebulous concept than "country." (aside: if, perhaps, we are
to interpret "country" in the vein of Shakespeare's "undiscovered
country," then we may have room for argument on your point of
patriotism. But that smacks of sophistry.)
> > Why would an organization tolerate violation of its own rules?
> > Why would someone join an organization whose rules they find abhorrent?
> > Or allow their child to do so?
> I'm not saying that people should break the rules, only that perhapps
> this rule is not in the best interest of the scouting organization.
> Scouting is not about our differences it is about our similarities.
> Scouting allows youth worldwide to learn what is really important in
> life, true life skills, the ability to work with others, to help those
> in need, and to truely know ones self.
>
I agree, and have agreed that the rule may not be in the best interest
of scouting. But it is the rules--the camping, the patriotism, the
reverence--that make the scouts what they are. Remove these principles
and you have something other than scouting. Perhaps better, perhaps
worse. ( Remove camping, though, and i say a damned sight worse.)
> > Who would dictate to a private organization what its rules should be,
> > and not lie awake at night for shame?
> Any self respecting member of the organization. Scouting is designed to
> adapt to the needs of it's members if the organization refuses to listen
> to it's members it has failed in it's purpose. Scouting is there for the
> youth members and any time we forget this we have failed, we have failed
> scouting, we have failed our youth, and we have failed ourselvs.
>
Yes, true, I meant to specify non-members dictating policy; my error.
OTOH, no one ever suggested scouting was a democracy.
,,,
v
BILL NELSON
I think Scouts Canada is a member of the WOSM.
The Fundamental Principles of Scouting, according to the World Organization
of Scouting Movement (WOSM) are:
Duty to God
Duty to Self
Duty to Country
As far as God is concerned, this is what they have to say:
Duty to God is a Fundamental Principle of the World Organization
of the Scouting Movement (WOSM).
Unless otherwise stated, single quotes indicate quotes from the
pamphlet Fundamental Principles by WOSM (see below) and double
quotes indicate quotes from Chapter 1 of the Constitution of
WOSM.
'The principles are the fundamental laws and beliefs which must
be observed when achieving the purpose (of the Scout Movement).
They represent a code of conduct which characterizes all members
of the Movement. Scouting is based upon three broad principles
which represent its fundamental laws and beliefs. They are
referred to as "Duty to God", "Duty to others" and "Duty to self".
As their names indicate, the first refers to a person's
relationship with the spiritual values of life; the second, to a
person's relationship with society in the broadest sense of the
term; and the third, to a person's obligations towards himself.'
"Duty to God"
"...adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that
expresses them and acceptance of the duties resulting
therefrom." Note that the body text does not use the
word God. In that way, (the WOSM feels) the clause covers religions
which are non-monotheistic, such as Hinduism, or those
which do not recognize a personal God, such as Buddhism.
'The above-mentioned principles relating to the spiritual, social
and personal dimensions constitute the fundamental laws and
beliefs upon which Scouting rests. Consequently, the program
of all Scout associations must provide maximum opportunities for
the growth of young people on the basis of these
principles....the promises and laws of national associations,
when first drafted and whenever modified, are subject to the
approval of the World Organization.'
Upon writing for the pamphlet called:
The Fundamental Principles of the WOSM
from:
World Scout Bureau
P.O. Box 241
5, rue du Pre-Jerome
CH-1211 Geneva 4
Switzerland
You can receive a very nice 12 page document describing the
Fundamental Principles as well as Chapter 1 of the
Constitution of WOSM. A small donation would be appropriate
(but not required) since they are not a large organization.
For more information, see the rec.scouting.issues FAQ
-bill
--
---
"A NATION owes its success, not so much to its strength
in armaments, as to the amount of character in its citizens."
- Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Scout Movement
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, me@myself.i () says:
>
>Scouts is Scouts. I can speak only of the BSA, but I assume the scout
>organizations of like-minded nations are like-minded organizations.
>
Not necessarily. The organizations that are members of the WOSM share some
fundamental principles, but the programs and other principles differ
from contry to country. For example, I think, Duty to country is defined
as Duty to others in Germany.
There is no 'belief in camping' as a universal belief in Scouting.
Most Scouting organizations use camping as a method to accomplish
their aims and principles, but it is not required. It is a BSA
traditional method, but there were times in the 1970s where you
could become an Eagle Scout without camping.
Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)
James K Nelsen wrote:
> Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1) (gre...@scout.net) wrote:
> : "Scouting is open to all, regardless
> : of race or creed, in accordance
> : with the purpose, principles and
> : method conceived by its founder
> : Robert Baden-Powell."
> : be excluded on ANY basis.
> believed in the religious values in scouting, but no one knows for sure
> what he would think of this issue today. That's part of the problem. The
> other aspect is that many scout units in the United States are sponsored
> by churches or other religious organizations that might not take to kindly
> to having atheists among their children.
by churches (though not all cases, we are sponsored by a community
association, our previous sponsor was however a church) should not need
to deal to deeply with religion, I do not beleive that any religion/lack
of religion should hinder this process unless that person tries to
convert others, and it doesn't matter then if they are christian,
athiest, or any other religion the moment they try to impose their
beleifs on others is the moment when problems arise, short of that, I'd
say let them be, the guiding principles of most religions include
tolerance and friendship, yet more wars are started over religions than
anything else...
Tom Way
In article <34B287...@usaor.net>, <me@myself.i> wrote:
[...snip..]
>
>I think you speak in error when you define 'atheist,' but since there is
>no official 'atheist' organization I suppose you may define it any way
>you choose. Linguistically, however, with the prefix "a-" meaning
>"anti" and "theist" meaning, essentially, "god," I shall stand by my
>Nietzchesque interpretation.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. While the prefix "a-" does mean
"against" (which seems to be what you meant by "anti", since
"anti-", like "a-", is also multiply defined), it just as often
means "without", as in "amoral", "asocial", "asexual"
and "atheistic".
If you remember your Nietzche, you'll recall him to be something
of a self-styled radical atheist, and in his case, you are
right, the "a-" probably meant "against". But that was specific
to Nietzche who spoke only for himself, not for all atheists.
Regards,
Tom Way
w...@cis.udel.edu
m...@meeself.i
Tom Way wrote:
> In article <34B287...@usaor.net>, <me@myself.i> wrote:
> >
> >I think you speak in error when you define 'atheist,' but since there is
> >no official 'atheist' organization I suppose you may define it any way
> >you choose. Linguistically, however, with the prefix "a-" meaning
> >"anti" and "theist" meaning, essentially, "god," I shall stand by my
> >Nietzchesque interpretation.
>
> Sorry, but you are mistaken. While the prefix "a-" does mean
> "against" (which seems to be what you meant by "anti", since
> "anti-", like "a-", is also multiply defined), it just as often
> means "without", as in "amoral", "asocial", "asexual"
> and "atheistic".
>
> If you remember your Nietzche, you'll recall him to be something
> of a self-styled radical atheist, and in his case, you are
> right, the "a-" probably meant "against". But that was specific
> to Nietzche who spoke only for himself, not for all atheists.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Way
> w...@cis.udel.edu
>
Good points all around, and well-taken. I did mean 'a-' = anti/against
to the exclusion of simple absence, thus I was inaccurate. In this
particular argument, though, I submit that the distinction is nebulous
at best. Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
participat in scouting). In fact, your interpretation of "a-theist" is
more accurate in that someone who is "AGAINST" god is more likey
described as some sort of satanist (maltheist?).
The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
of sorts nonetheless.
or so it seems to me!
regards,
hammer
J. Hugh Sullivan
nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON) wrote:
>It is a BSA
>traditional method, but there were times in the 1970s where you
>could become an Eagle Scout without camping.
The January 1969 printing of the Handbook requires Camping Merit Badge for
Eagle; the June 1972 printing does not. I don't think a Scout was required to
swim during the latter period either.
My 2 sons earned Eagle under the different requirements. They didn't know the
difference because Camping, Swimming and Pioneering were always required for
any male living under my roof. Yep! That's adding to the requirements for sure!
In 1943 the required MBs for Eagle were: First Aid, Life Saving, Personal
Health, Public Health, Cooking, Camping, Civics, Bird Study, Pathfinding,
Safety, Pioneering and Athletics or Physical Development. Camping MB required
you to make a fire by flint and steel OR "by rubbing sticks, using in so far as
possible, native materials which he has gathered....".
Hugh
Brian Westley
me@meeself.i writes:
...
>... Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
>are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
>participat in scouting).
Why are vociferous atheists excluded, yet vociferous theists
not excluded? Why does degree-of-certainty make any difference?
Yeah, it's much simpler if you remove people who hold opinions.
Can't have that.
>In fact, your interpretation of "a-theist" is
>more accurate in that someone who is "AGAINST" god is more likey
>described as some sort of satanist (maltheist?).
How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in gods,
and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of gods?
Is that already "vociferous"? Seems pretty innocuous to me.
>The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
>definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
>which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
>EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
>conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
>of sorts nonetheless.
No, that's only evidence if you assume a god or godlike being
is needed to create it; you're just assuming your conclusion.
If you assume a god is needed to move the sun across the sky,
the fact that the sun moves the sky is evidence for Apollo.
But it's absurd to turn that around and claim that the
sun's apparent movement is evidence for Apollo, just as
many theists assume the universe is evidence for their
various gods.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
m...@meeself.i
Brian,
Your truculent tone suggests to me that you're itchin' for a fight.
Well, I won't give you one (This is scout-principled NG, after all). I
will, however, give you the best argument I can muster.
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> me@meeself.i writes:
> ...
> >... Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
> >are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
> >participate in scouting).
>
> Why are vociferous atheists excluded, yet vociferous theists
> not excluded? Why does degree-of-certainty make any difference?
>
With all due respect, are you brand-new to this thread? It centers
around the (stipulated) fact that the BSA considers belief in god as a
basic tenet of scouting. We have since strayed from that onto a
discussion of atheism, but it remains that the scouts value a belief in
god. Your question is, at best, redundant.
> Yeah, it's much simpler if you remove people who hold opinions.
> Can't have that.
>
>
Ah, sarcasm. It's much simpler if you remove people whose opinions are
offensive to the organization, yes. If you have been following this
thread, you will notice that I have not suggested this is a wise course
of action, necessarily, only that the BSA are well within their rights
to set their own standards without consulting you, me, or Madelaine
Murray O'Hare (an admittedly difficult thing).
Do you suppose the Knights of Columbus should admit atheists? Would
they 'benefit' from the influx of differing opinions? Before you argue
that is non sequitur, I suggest it is only a matter of degree and thus
apt.
>In fact, your interpretation of "a-theist" is
> >more accurate in that someone who is "AGAINST" god is more likey
> >described as some sort of satanist (maltheist?).
>
> How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in gods,
> and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of gods?
> Is that already "vociferous"? Seems pretty innocuous to me.
>
I would characterize someone who "does not believe" in gods as an
atheist. I would characterize someone who makes no godly oaths or
promises as
--well, as myself, for example. The two need not be the same person,
incidentally. I do not understand your last two sentences in the
paragraph.
> >The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
> >definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
> >which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
> >EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
> >conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
> >of sorts nonetheless.
>
> No, that's only evidence if you assume a god or godlike being
> is needed to create it; you're just assuming your conclusion.
> If you assume a god is needed to move the sun across the sky,
> the fact that the sun moves the sky is evidence for Apollo.
>
You are part of the crowd who continues to fail to appreciate the
distinction I am making between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence."
When OJ Simpson claimed he was asleep during the murder of his wife,
that was *evidence* of his innocence. We are left to assign credulity
to that evidence. No evidence exists, however circumstantial, to
support the notion that "god does not exist." In that regard,
atheism--in all its flavors--is MORE a 'faith' even than religion! I do
not "assume" god is necessary to explain the universe. And given that a
Pantheon-worshipper would be not be blackballed from scouting, the
theological distinction--and jibe--you are attempting to make vis a vis
"Apollo," "Yaweh," "Wotan," "Brahma" and the rest is irrelevant.
> But it's absurd to turn that around and claim that the
> sun's apparent movement is evidence for Apollo, just as
> many theists assume the universe is evidence for their
> various gods.
It is hardly absurd, even if it should turn out to be wrong. When one
sees a clock, it is not absurd to assume the existence of a clockmaker.
It is however, absurd to posit that that same sun and its movement is
proof of *no* god (I realize you are not doing this). It is absurd,
even ludicrous, to suggest that there can *be* evidence of no god. This
alleged "god" might one day appear in the sky, speaking in a universal
tongue and passing out Doritos; most of us would then acknoweledge god's
existance. This same god might remain silent and unseen for ever, thus
proving nothing. To state absolute belief in god, at worst, exposes one
to the possibility of being wrong. To state ABSOLUTE knowledge of no
god marks one as a dunce.
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
which is it? Merlyn or Brian?
regards,
hammer
Neil Savage
In article <690987$cn9$3...@uwm.edu>, jne...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu (James K Nelsen)
writes...
>... many scout units in the United States are sponsored
>by churches or other religious organizations that might not take to kindly
>to having atheists among their children.
Indeed so, Jim -- except possibly for 'closet' atheists, who hide their
atheism by, for example, suppressing their speech.
Therein lies the krux of the issue: Should ALL atheists be required to
at least tacitly accept the BSA Oath (as presently writen) or should
the BSA officially make an accommodation similar to the GSUSA (for example)?
- neil
Brian Westley
me@meeself.i writes:
>Your truculent tone suggests to me that you're itchin' for a fight.
I suppose desegregationists were described as truculent, too.
Fighting for bigoted values can be a tough row to hoe.
>Well, I won't give you one (This is scout-principled NG, after all). I
>will, however, give you the best argument I can muster.
>Brian Westley wrote:
>>
>> me@meeself.i writes:
>> ...
>> >... Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
>> >are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
>> >participate in scouting).
>>
>> Why are vociferous atheists excluded, yet vociferous theists
>> not excluded? Why does degree-of-certainty make any difference?
>With all due respect, are you brand-new to this thread?
No.
>It centers
>around the (stipulated) fact that the BSA considers belief in god as a
>basic tenet of scouting.
And your sentence above suggests that *only* atheists that are
"CERTAIN of their atheism" are kicked out by the BSA. That's
not true, the BSA kicks out atheists, period.
>We have since strayed from that onto a
>discussion of atheism, but it remains that the scouts value a belief in
>god. Your question is, at best, redundant.
No, my question is valid. Imagine someone defending white-only
country clubs by claiming only "belligerent" blacks are kept out.
Isn't that disingenuous?
You seem to claim that only the loud, obnoxious atheists are kept
out, and the nice, quiet atheists are welcome.
>> Yeah, it's much simpler if you remove people who hold opinions.
>> Can't have that.
>Ah, sarcasm. It's much simpler if you remove people whose opinions are
>offensive to the organization, yes. If you have been following this
>thread, you will notice that I have not suggested this is a wise course
>of action, necessarily, only that the BSA are well within their rights
>to set their own standards without consulting you, me, or Madelaine
>Murray O'Hare (an admittedly difficult thing).
The BSA are only within their rights if they are within the law.
Can the BSA require publically-chartered scout troops and Explorer
posts to practice religious discrimination? No, but they do it
anyway.
>Do you suppose the Knights of Columbus should admit atheists?
The K of C doesn't solicit my local police department to start
a youth group that then excludes atheists. The BSA does
(see, e.g. Buffalo Grove).
>Would
>they 'benefit' from the influx of differing opinions? Before you argue
>that is non sequitur, I suggest it is only a matter of degree and thus
>apt.
It is not just a matter of degree; the BSA commits fraud when it
accepts United Way funds, as the UW requires that recipients
not discriminate on the basis of religion.
> >In fact, your interpretation of "a-theist" is
>> >more accurate in that someone who is "AGAINST" god is more likey
>> >described as some sort of satanist (maltheist?).
>>
>> How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in gods,
>> and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of gods?
>> Is that already "vociferous"? Seems pretty innocuous to me.
>I would characterize someone who "does not believe" in gods as an
>atheist. I would characterize someone who makes no godly oaths or
>promises as
>--well, as myself, for example. The two need not be the same person,
>incidentally. I do not understand your last two sentences in the
>paragraph.
Because someone who fits my hypothetical person is sufficient to
get them rejected by the BSA. You seem to think that only vociferous
atheists are rejected. My hypothetical person doesn't sound vociferous
to me, yet they would be rejected by the BSA.
>> >The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
>> >definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
>> >which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
>> >EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
>> >conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
>> >of sorts nonetheless.
>>
>> No, that's only evidence if you assume a god or godlike being
>> is needed to create it; you're just assuming your conclusion.
>> If you assume a god is needed to move the sun across the sky,
>> the fact that the sun moves the sky is evidence for Apollo.
>>
>You are part of the crowd who continues to fail to appreciate the
>distinction I am making between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence."
Why is the universe evidence for a god, and not evidence for, say,
hordes of leprechauns with magic wands?
>When OJ Simpson claimed he was asleep during the murder of his wife,
>that was *evidence* of his innocence. We are left to assign credulity
>to that evidence. No evidence exists, however circumstantial, to
>support the notion that "god does not exist."
As much evidence for the notion that "leprechauns do not exist".
So, do you think leprechauns exist? Do you put them on par with
the existence of gods?
>In that regard,
>atheism--in all its flavors--is MORE a 'faith' even than religion!
This is a very tired old canard; somehow pointing out the obvious
lack of magical superbeings involves more faith than thinking
magical superbeings exist.
Do you believe in fairies? Djinn? Does it take more faith to
not believe in these things?
>I do
>not "assume" god is necessary to explain the universe.
Then the existence of the universe would not be evidence for a god,
would it? Yet you say it is, for some reason. I see no connection,
unless a connection is being assumed.
>And given that a
>Pantheon-worshipper would be not be blackballed from scouting, the
>theological distinction--and jibe--you are attempting to make vis a vis
>"Apollo," "Yaweh," "Wotan," "Brahma" and the rest is irrelevant.
That wasn't given as an argument about the BSA, that was given
as a counterexample for your argument. If you say the universe
is evidence for your god, the sun is also evidence for Apollo.
When you realize why you don't believe in Apollo (even though the
sun DOES exist), you might realize why I don't believe in god (even
though the universe DOES exist).
>> But it's absurd to turn that around and claim that the
>> sun's apparent movement is evidence for Apollo, just as
>> many theists assume the universe is evidence for their
>> various gods.
>It is hardly absurd, even if it should turn out to be wrong. When one
>sees a clock, it is not absurd to assume the existence of a clockmaker.
And a clock-clockmaker, and a clock-clock-clockmaker...
Watchmaker gods are like potato chips; you can't get just one.
>It is however, absurd to posit that that same sun and its movement is
>proof of *no* god (I realize you are not doing this). It is absurd,
>even ludicrous, to suggest that there can *be* evidence of no god. This
>alleged "god" might one day appear in the sky, speaking in a universal
>tongue and passing out Doritos; most of us would then acknoweledge god's
>existance. This same god might remain silent and unseen for ever, thus
>proving nothing. To state absolute belief in god, at worst, exposes one
>to the possibility of being wrong. To state ABSOLUTE knowledge of no
>god marks one as a dunce.
Just as to state ABSOLUTE knowledge of no leprechauns marks one as
a dunce. What would you say to someone who regards gods in the
same way as you regard leprechauns?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Mathew E Goldstein
This is not an appropriate news group to get into a discussion of whether
atheism is more or less reasonable then theism. This is necessarily a
subjective determination, and suffice it to say that there are many forms
of theism, at least some of which probably seem to be quite unreasonable
to most people, although which manifistation of theism is deemed
unreasonable will vary from person to person. Which is why this argument
by me@myself.i that BSA is right to restrict participation by atheists
because he thinks atheism is unreasonable is besides the point.
However, the perception, held by me@myself.i and many others, that atheism
and theism are characterized by 'absolute surety' and 'certainty' is a
common misunderstanding. Since many theists appear to claim that their
belief is 'fact' and because some vocal atheists appear to be just as
dogmatic, it is understandable that many people assume that they are both
characterized by their most stereotypically ideologically manifestations.
In fact, they (atheism and theism) are both opinions, and how far
individual atheists or theists go in confusing personal opinions for facts
is really up to them. Does it help to resolve this confusion that BSA
endorses restricting the membership of atheists or does it contribute to
promoting this confusion? Answer: It does not nothing to help and only
contributes to promoting theism=fact theism <> opinion. So it is
especially ironic that me@myself.i argues on behalf of BSA policy
restricting pariticipation of atheists on the grounds that there is too
much 'certainty' in theistic and atheistic beliefs.
me@meeself.i wrote:
: ... Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
: are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
: participat in scouting).
In the court case in California involving twins who were kicked out of
their (PTO/PTA?) Cub Scout den because they lip synced 'god', the twins
both say they are (and always were) uncertain about the existence or
nature of god.
: The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
: definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
: which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
: EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
: conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
: of sorts nonetheless.
: or so it seems to me!
The crux of your argument is circular, you are starting with assumptions
that fit your conclusion. There is nothing wrong or bad about circular
reasoning provided that we recognize it as such and do not take it too
seriously, which is unfortunately not what you seem to be doing here.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in god,
>and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of god?
White trash???
Hugh
Brian Westley
>White trash???
More true scouting spirit from Hugh.
Next, he calls Jews Kikes.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
m...@meeself.i
Merlyn,
It's apparant that we're actually moving apart in terms of
understanding. Frankly, I find your logic to be disjointed and
meandering, but i suppose you have criticisms of your own to level at my
reasoning. I only state this because I am finding it difficult to
respond cogently to what looks more and more to me like rhetorical
nonsense.
Brian Westley wrote:
> I suppose desegregationists were described as truculent, too.
> Fighting for bigoted values can be a tough row to hoe.
>
If you are suggesting that you are fighting for your values and that
they are bigoted, I might agree. I suspect you mistyped and actually
intended to make the tired, desperate intimation--and insult--of bigotry
against an opponent in the hopes that you will be able to summarily
dismiss their opinions as inherently ill-conceived, and thus not have to
engage in the bothersome task of actually debating them. If the latter
is the case, I cordially invite you to 1) make the accusation plain so
that I'll know just what kind of mind I'm arguing against, and 2) get
bent. A smug sense of self-superiority may make you feel better, but it
will do little to advance your cause among the as-yet unconverted.
> >> Why are vociferous atheists excluded, yet vociferous theists
> >> not excluded? Why does degree-of-certainty make any difference?
>
> >With all due respect, are you brand-new to this thread?
t.
>
> No, my question is valid. Imagine someone defending white-only
> country clubs by claiming only "belligerent" blacks are kept out.
> Isn't that disingenuous?
>
Here's a little ammo for your insult launcher: I'm one of those
hairy-eared militants who think private clubs ought to have the right to
keep out anybody they damn well please. I would defend a blacks-only
club's right to bar from membership white people regardless of their
belligerance. Perhaps you would too. I imagine you would distance
yourself from me, though, when I suggest that white clubs have the right
to bar indiscriminately (pun!) as well. It's not disingenuous at all;
it's personal liberty, which is a hell of a thing for an American to be
fixated on...but there ya go. Fire for effect.
> You seem to claim that only the loud, obnoxious atheists are kept
> out, and the nice, quiet atheists are welcome.
>
That's what I claim. In my 10 or so years of scouting, no one ever
asked me about my religious affiliation. I could have been an atheist,
a pantheist, a snake-worshipper--no one would ever have known unless i
had chosen to 'testify' as to my own theological bent.
>
> The BSA are only within their rights if they are within the law.
>
If the law says the BSA must kowtow to outsiders, then the law is a ass.
> Can the BSA require publically-chartered scout troops and Explorer
> posts to practice religious discrimination? No, but they do it
> anyway.
>
"Publicly" chartered? How so? Government funding? SEC filings? Clue
me in.
The discrimination emanates from people who wish to force their beliefs
on the BSA, not the other way around, recursive diversity-logic
notwithstanding.
> >Do you suppose the Knights of Columbus should admit atheists?
>
> The K of C doesn't solicit my local police department to start
> a youth group that then excludes atheists. The BSA does
> (see, e.g. Buffalo Grove).
>
Mere solicitation of support is neither illegal, immoral, or unethical.
If your police department chooses to lend support to an organization
that you, as a taxpayer, find offensive, then I'd say this is a matter
to take up with your police department or municipality, not the BSA. I
know it smarts when the community does not ensure that its agenda
revolves around the particular minority opinion to which one ascribes,
but alas this is America.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
> >Would
> >they 'benefit' from the influx of differing opinions? Before you argue
> >that is non sequitur, I suggest it is only a matter of degree and thus
> >apt.
>
> It is not just a matter of degree; the BSA commits fraud when it
> accepts United Way funds, as the UW requires that recipients
> not discriminate on the basis of religion.
>
You didn't answer the question. Would they or wouldn't they?
Perhaps you should inform the United Way of your suspicions. It may
have escaped their notice. In the meantime, I advise you to limit your
monetary contributions to the United Way. Since the United Way is also
a peskily private organization, this is a matter between them and their
supporters.
>
>
> Because someone who fits my hypothetical person is sufficient to
> get them rejected by the BSA. You seem to think that only vociferous
> atheists are rejected. My hypothetical person doesn't sound vociferous
> to me, yet they would be rejected by the BSA.
>
Here I must beg your pardon. I went too far for effect when I used the
term 'vociferous' when 'vocal' would have sufficed. Your hypothetical
person would not be rejected unless they insisted--as minorities always
do--on making certain everybody knew about their personal relationship
with the Empty Set.
> >>
> >You are part of the crowd who continues to fail to appreciate the
> >distinction I am making between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence."
>
> Why is the universe evidence for a god, and not evidence for, say,
> hordes of leprechauns with magic wands?
>
This is specious and you know it. Put aside your own anthropomorphic
suppositions about what I believe god to be, and understand that I am
saying that "creation implies creator" makes more sense than "creation
implies no creator." It does not prove existence of a creator, but
then, I never said it did. Incidentally, I make no claim that
leprechauns do not exist, only that I have never seen one. If I were to
solicit membership in an organization whose tenets required that I
either profess a belief in leprechauns, or just simply keep quiet about
my doubts--I would not be indignant when I was blackballed.
The universe is a large place, and I would not be especially surprised
to someday learn of a planet populated by leprechauns, magic wands and
all. The evidence that they created creation is not, IMO, conclusive.
No evidence exists, however circumstantial, to
> >support the notion that "god does not exist."
>
> As much evidence for the notion that "leprechauns do not exist".
> So, do you think leprechauns exist? Do you put them on par with
> the existence of gods?
>
It is not incumbent upon 'believers,' or their organizations, to justify
themselves to 'non-beleivers' who wish to infiltrate their ranks. Those
who assume the burden of conversion, of course, bring that madness upon
themselves.
> >In that regard,
> >atheism--in all its flavors--is MORE a 'faith' even than religion!
>
> This is a very tired old canard; somehow pointing out the obvious
> lack of magical superbeings involves more faith than thinking
> magical superbeings exist.
>
It's also irksome to the nouveau-philosophy crowd to remember that
sometimes the old canards really are the best ones. Your choice of the
term "magical superbeings" is inspired. But you trip yourself up when
you use the term "pointing out/obvious" versus "thinking." Ponder for a
moment the vast gulf of implication--and assumption--between the two.
> Do you believe in fairies? Djinn? Does it take more faith to
> not believe in these things?
>
Not yet, not yet, and yes. These things are not purported by anyone to
be the creators of the universe.
> >I do
> >not "assume" god is necessary to explain the universe.
>
> Then the existence of the universe would not be evidence for a god,
> would it? Yet you say it is, for some reason. I see no connection,
> unless a connection is being assumed.
>
The existence of the universe is evidence of its creation. A "creator"
is clearly implied. The nature of the creator is anyone's guess. My
fingerprints on a highball glass at the scene of a murder are evidence
that i am the murderer. A good District Attorney will realize that this
evidence alone is not conclusive.
> >And given that a
> >Pantheon-worshipper would be not be blackballed from scouting, the
> >theological distinction--and jibe--you are attempting to make vis a vis
> >"Apollo," "Yaweh," "Wotan," "Brahma" and the rest is irrelevant.
>
> That wasn't given as an argument about the BSA, that was given
> as a counterexample for your argument. If you say the universe
> is evidence for your god, the sun is also evidence for Apollo.
> When you realize why you don't believe in Apollo (even though the
> sun DOES exist), you might realize why I don't believe in god (even
> though the universe DOES exist).
>
Don't assume that I don't believe in Apollo, because the brief notion of
god which I allow myself is not easily bound by human naming
conventions. Whether I find ten bucks on the street or ten dollars, or
ten simoleans, I am similarly enriched. I have a pretty good idea why
you don't believe in god; been there, done that. The fact reamains that
I don't claim to know as much as you claim to know, and your claim
pushes you beyond the bounds of credibility in that you purport to know
the unknowable. I don't.
> >> But it's absurd to turn that around and claim that the
> >> sun's apparent movement is evidence for Apollo, just as
> >> many theists assume the universe is evidence for their
> >> various gods.
>
> >It is hardly absurd, even if it should turn out to be wrong. When one
> >sees a clock, it is not absurd to assume the existence of a clockmaker.
>
> And a clock-clockmaker, and a clock-clock-clockmaker...
> Watchmaker gods are like potato chips; you can't get just one.
>
If this was meant to prove the absence of god by suggesting an infinite
number of gods, it failed miserably! BTW do you suppose god comes in
sour cream and chive?
> >It is however, absurd to posit that that same sun and its movement is
> >proof of *no* god (I realize you are not doing this). It is absurd,
> >even ludicrous, to suggest that there can *be* evidence of no god.
>
> Just as to state ABSOLUTE knowledge of no leprechauns marks one as
> a dunce. What would you say to someone who regards gods in the
> same way as you regard leprechauns?
>
As I said above, i would never claim to know that leprechauns do not
exist, as i do not relish looking like a dunce. I would also not
attempt to join any organization which demands i swear an oath to the
lucky charms guy specifically. The BSA does not, at this time, have
such a requirement.
We're not getting anywhere, are we?
I refuse to continue to be put in a position of defending those who,
unlike myself, claim to have conclusive evidence of god. I will only
defend my own positions; namely, that god cannot be disproven, and that
the BSA are entitled to set their own standards.
On rereading this post, I realize it sounds more antagonistic than I
intend. I apologize for that.
regards,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
<snip>
>.... this argument
> by me@myself.i that BSA is right to restrict participation by atheists
> because he thinks atheism is unreasonable is besides the point.
>
That is not my argument, it is only tangental. My argument is that the
BSA have the right to restrict participation by atheists because *they*
find it unreasonable.
> However, the perception, held by me@myself.i and many others, that atheism
> and theism are characterized by 'absolute surety' and 'certainty' is a
> common misunderstanding.
That is not my perception, and I ahve made no statements to that effect
unless they were accompanied by the specific proviso that a given
example refers to an a/theist of surety.
So it is
> especially ironic that me@myself.i argues on behalf of BSA policy
> restricting pariticipation of atheists on the grounds that there is too
> much 'certainty' in theistic and atheistic beliefs.
>
Again you err in estimating my position. I argue on behalf of BSA
policy on the grounds that the policy is theirs to set. I do not intend
to continue defending arguments that I am not making.
> me@meeself.i wrote:
>
> : ... Remember, the jist of this thread centers around people who
> : are vociferously CERTAIN of their atheism (and their eligibility to
> : participat in scouting).
>
> In the court case in California involving twins who were kicked out of
> their (PTO/PTA?) Cub Scout den because they lip synced 'god', the twins
> both say they are (and always were) uncertain about the existence or
> nature of god.
>
Be that as it may, by making a "point" to refuse to say a possibly
meaningless word ('god') they have placed themselves in the camp of the
dissenter. If we're talking about Cub Scouts, I personally guarrantee
the axe being ground is the parents', not the childrens'.
> : The crux of my argument here is that it is probably less reasonable--and
> : definitely no moreso--to be CERTAIN of the ABSENCE of god (a notion
> : which can never leave the realm of negative-speculation) than the
> : EXISTENCE of 'God,' which has for evidence the whole of creation. Not
> : conclusive evidence, perhaps circumstantial evidence; but a smoking gun
> : of sorts nonetheless.
>
> : or so it seems to me!
>
> The crux of your argument is circular, you are starting with assumptions
> that fit your conclusion. There is nothing wrong or bad about circular
> reasoning provided that we recognize it as such and do not take it too
> seriously, which is unfortunately not what you seem to be doing here.
Given that you cannot, or will not, see that I am not assuming there is
a god, nor attempting to prove one, I am beginning to wonder if we are
wasting our time. I think you have a responsibility to participate in
the discussion at hand, and not an invented one. There is nothing
circular in suggesting there is no proof for the absence of god (a
creator) while suggesting that creation is possible, though not
conclusive, evidence of a creator.
hammer
Brian Westley
me@meeself.i writes:
>It's apparant that we're actually moving apart in terms of
>understanding. Frankly, I find your logic to be disjointed and
>meandering, but i suppose you have criticisms of your own to level at my
>reasoning. I only state this because I am finding it difficult to
>respond cogently to what looks more and more to me like rhetorical
>nonsense.
If you have any specific examples, point them out.
>> I suppose desegregationists were described as truculent, too.
>> Fighting for bigoted values can be a tough row to hoe.
>If you are suggesting that you are fighting for your values and that
>they are bigoted, I might agree. I suspect you mistyped and actually
>intended to make the tired, desperate intimation--and insult--of bigotry
>against an opponent in the hopes that you will be able to summarily
>dismiss their opinions as inherently ill-conceived, and thus not have to
>engage in the bothersome task of actually debating them. If the latter
>is the case, I cordially invite you to 1) make the accusation plain so
>that I'll know just what kind of mind I'm arguing against, and 2) get
>bent. A smug sense of self-superiority may make you feel better, but it
>will do little to advance your cause among the as-yet unconverted.
Certainly. Apparently, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you
agree with the BSA excluding atheists, or at least excluding
atheists who are "vociferous" (though exactly what that
involves isn't clear).
That's supporting bigotry. The BSA denegrates atheists and considers
them second class citizens solely due to their religious views.
This is just as bigoted as considering Jews second class citizens
for the same reasons.
>> >> Why are vociferous atheists excluded, yet vociferous theists
>> >> not excluded? Why does degree-of-certainty make any difference?
>>
>> >With all due respect, are you brand-new to this thread?
>t.
>>
>> No, my question is valid. Imagine someone defending white-only
>> country clubs by claiming only "belligerent" blacks are kept out.
>> Isn't that disingenuous?
>Here's a little ammo for your insult launcher: I'm one of those
>hairy-eared militants who think private clubs ought to have the right to
>keep out anybody they damn well please. I would defend a blacks-only
>club's right to bar from membership white people regardless of their
>belligerance. Perhaps you would too.
Yes, I would. However, I would make damn sure they didn't get
public money (like the BSA) and I would criticize them instead of
defend their racist policies.
>I imagine you would distance
>yourself from me, though, when I suggest that white clubs have the right
>to bar indiscriminately (pun!) as well.
Only if you *also* defended their choice to be whites-only by
(say) claiming they are excluding "belligerent" blacks. You
are doing a similar thing with the BSA by claiming they are
keeping out only "vociferous" atheists. You are making their
exclusion sound reasonable when it's really just plain old
religious prejudice.
>It's not disingenuous at all;
>it's personal liberty, which is a hell of a thing for an American to be
>fixated on...but there ya go. Fire for effect.
It's quite possible to be acting within the law and still
be bigoted.
>> You seem to claim that only the loud, obnoxious atheists are kept
>> out, and the nice, quiet atheists are welcome.
>That's what I claim.
Well, it's false. For example, the BSA rejected Rick Sherman's
application for the Buffalo Grove Police Explorers (a post
chartered by the *public police department*, which CANNOT
exclude people based on religion), and all he did was strike
out 'god' on the application.
>In my 10 or so years of scouting, no one ever
>asked me about my religious affiliation. I could have been an atheist,
>a pantheist, a snake-worshipper--no one would ever have known unless i
>had chosen to 'testify' as to my own theological bent.
Or chose to not promise to a god, of course.
This is like saying our theoretical whites-only club admits
blacks if they look white and don't tell anyone they're black.
That isn't the same as admitting blacks.
>> The BSA are only within their rights if they are within the law.
>If the law says the BSA must kowtow to outsiders, then the law is a ass.
If the law says my local police department can sponsor a youth
group that practices religious discrimination, the law is an ass.
>> Can the BSA require publically-chartered scout troops and Explorer
>> posts to practice religious discrimination? No, but they do it
>> anyway.
>"Publicly" chartered? How so? Government funding?
Yes; the BG PD is the city police department. Public
schools charter cub scout troops.
>SEC filings? Clue me in.
>The discrimination emanates from people who wish to force their beliefs
>on the BSA, not the other way around, recursive diversity-logic
>notwithstanding.
What?! The BSA is the one rejecting people for religious reasons.
>> >Do you suppose the Knights of Columbus should admit atheists?
>>
>> The K of C doesn't solicit my local police department to start
>> a youth group that then excludes atheists. The BSA does
>> (see, e.g. Buffalo Grove).
>Mere solicitation of support is neither illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Of course it's unethical. Can I offer to start a youth group in
my local police department that excludes Jews? Sure, but I
don't call it ethical. Can I do it if I don't TELL the PD
that I will exclude any application with a "Jewish" name?
Much more likely; now the PD doesn't know it's being used
the practice discrimination. Immoral? You bet. Illegal?
Yes, the PD can't be a party to this.
This is exactly what happend in Buffalo Grove. Got to Yahoo,
search for "atheist scouts" and check out Matt's page.
The BG PD did not know that the BSA would reject all
candidates that didn't meet its religious requirements.
Does the BSA still have religious requirements? Yes.
Does the BSA still have hundreds of Explorer posts
chartered by police, fire, US military, etc.? Yep.
Does the BSA tell them that they reject people based on religion?
Hell, no.
>If your police department chooses to lend support to an organization
>that you, as a taxpayer, find offensive, then I'd say this is a matter
>to take up with your police department or municipality, not the BSA.
This old saw; the BSA is LYING BY OMISSION. The BSA knows DAMN WELL
that the police can't reject kids who are the "wrong" religion,
but the BSA does it anyway, on their behalf.
>I know it smarts when the community does not ensure that its agenda
>revolves around the particular minority opinion to which one ascribes,
>but alas this is America.
And America has always had the first amendment, which means that
the community CANNOT practice or endorse the BSA's revolting
religious bigotry.
>Yes, that was sarcasm.
Not very good sarcasm; do you REALLY think the city government
can have, say, a "no-Jews" youth group? What's the difference
when the city runs a "no-atheists" youth group?
Legally, none.
>> >Would
>> >they 'benefit' from the influx of differing opinions? Before you argue
>> >that is non sequitur, I suggest it is only a matter of degree and thus
>> >apt.
>>
>> It is not just a matter of degree; the BSA commits fraud when it
>> accepts United Way funds, as the UW requires that recipients
>> not discriminate on the basis of religion.
>You didn't answer the question. Would they or wouldn't they?
Yes; so why won't the BSA admit kids who have a different
opinion on the existence of gods?
>Perhaps you should inform the United Way of your suspicions. It may
>have escaped their notice. In the meantime, I advise you to limit your
>monetary contributions to the United Way. Since the United Way is also
>a peskily private organization, this is a matter between them and their
>supporters.
No, it becomes public if it constitutes public fraud.
>> Because someone who fits my hypothetical person is sufficient to
>> get them rejected by the BSA. You seem to think that only vociferous
>> atheists are rejected. My hypothetical person doesn't sound vociferous
>> to me, yet they would be rejected by the BSA.
>Here I must beg your pardon. I went too far for effect when I used the
>term 'vociferous' when 'vocal' would have sufficed. Your hypothetical
>person would not be rejected unless they insisted--as minorities always
>do--on making certain everybody knew about their personal relationship
>with the Empty Set.
Oh, so a club that keeps out Jews is fine with you if only
people who publically vocalize their Jewishness are rejected?
How white of you.
>> >You are part of the crowd who continues to fail to appreciate the
>> >distinction I am making between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence."
>>
>> Why is the universe evidence for a god, and not evidence for, say,
>> hordes of leprechauns with magic wands?
>This is specious and you know it.
No, I'm quite serious. Why is the universe evidence for
a single all-powerful being, but not evidence for large
numbers of less-powerful magical beings with magic
technology?
>Put aside your own anthropomorphic
>suppositions about what I believe god to be, and understand that I am
>saying that "creation implies creator" makes more sense than "creation
>implies no creator." It does not prove existence of a creator, but
>then, I never said it did.
You said it was evidence; it is no more evidence for gods
than leprechauns.
>Incidentally, I make no claim that
>leprechauns do not exist, only that I have never seen one. If I were to
>solicit membership in an organization whose tenets required that I
>either profess a belief in leprechauns, or just simply keep quiet about
>my doubts--I would not be indignant when I was blackballed.
Would you be indignant when the same organization had public schools
soliciting your children to join, and public police departments
kicking out kids who don't believe?
...
>> Do you believe in fairies? Djinn? Does it take more faith to
>> not believe in these things?
>>
>Not yet, not yet, and yes. These things are not purported by anyone to
>be the creators of the universe.
You don't know your theology; Djinn are from Islam, they are
roughly equivalent to angels.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
m...@meeself.i
Yes, Merlyn, even if you and I at times exchange strenuous rhetoric in
our discussions, I think we can both agree that time spent NOT debating
Hugh's sort of intellectual vomit is time well spent.
hammer
Brian Westley
me@meeself.i writes:
...
>Be that as it may, by making a "point" to refuse to say a possibly
>meaningless word ('god') they have placed themselves in the camp of the
>dissenter. If we're talking about Cub Scouts, I personally guarrantee
>the axe being ground is the parents', not the childrens'.
What? I was a cub scout when I was about ten, and I
didn't say the word 'god' because I was an atheist.
Are you now insisting that there are no atheists that young?
So much for your "personal guarantee".
---
Merlyn LeRoy
m...@meeself.i
Yes I am asserting that. I am asserting that no ten-year-old has the
experience to speak with authority on terms of atheism, or theism; that
a child of that age can only mouth platitudes which have been fed to
them by others.
You may have thought you "were" an atheist at 10. I think you were not.
Readers of this thread will have to decide for themselves. Let's please
not go down another unresolvable road.
However, since you are not satisfied with my personal guarantee, I
cheerfully offer you double your money back!
reeeeeeeegards,
hammer
Neil Savage
In article <692rjs$svv$1...@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>, w...@eecis.udel.edu (Tom Way)
writes...
>
>..."anti-", like "a-", is also multiply defined), it just as often
>and "atheistic".
>
Tom is correct. It makes no sense for everyone to go off on their own
with complex notions of what atheism is. If we are to communicate
reasonably, we must go by the well-adopted convention that simply
says: "a-" => without; "-theism" => belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Is was the 13th century philospher, William of Occam, who advised,
"Be simple in the explanation of all things, do not multiply entities
beyond necessity."
It was some early engineer that distilled this down to "K.I.S.S"
Some atheists are religion-friendly [I consider myself aligned with
ultra-liberal religions, such as UU and Buddhism], some are
religion-neutral, and some are hostile to all forms of organized
religion. There is no more uniformity among atheists than there
is among theists - or among philosophers for that matter.
Atheists have only that one simple idea in common. KEEP it simple
[Scouters]!
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <34B2F0FF...@scout.net>, "Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)"
<gre...@scout.net> writes...
>Scouting is not about our differences it is about our similarities.
>Scouting allows youth worldwide to learn what is really important in
>life, true life skills, the ability to work with others, to help those
>in need, and to truely know ones self.
>
>adapt to the needs of it's members if the organization refuses to listen
>to it's members it has failed in it's purpose. Scouting is there for the
>youth members and any time we forget this we have failed, we have failed
>scouting, we have failed our youth, and we have failed ourselvs.
>
Good on you, Roger! You are Canadian and I am a citizen of the USA
but we interpret Scouting in the same way - not as an exclusive
'outing' club for conservative religionists, but as a organization
that must of necessity adhere to pluralistic principles as you have
described above.
Your views would fit in well here in my local council.
YiS,
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <693pat$5nf$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
writes...
>... the BSA kicks out atheists, period.
Not true. I can personally attest that I was NOT "kicked out" when my
NG statement was passed down the chain of command to my DE. I was
simply advised not to put the name of the council in my signature line.
>...that only the loud, obnoxious atheists are kept
>out, and the nice, quiet atheists are welcome.
>
IMO: the 'loud and obnoxious' has to amount to publicly refusing to live by
the BSA Oath. And, perhaps a statement refuting the DRP would do it but
you'd have to send the refutation in writing, under your own signature,
directly to a BSA official.
- neil
m...@meeself.i
Neil Savage wrote:
> In article <692rjs$svv$1...@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>, w...@eecis.udel.edu (Tom Way)
> writes...
> >
> >..."anti-", like "a-", is also multiply defined), it just as often
> >means "without", as in "amoral", "asocial", "asexual"
> >and "atheistic".
> >
>
> Tom is correct. It makes no sense for everyone to go off on their own
> with complex notions of what atheism is. If we are to communicate
> reasonably, we must go by the well-adopted convention that simply
> says: "a-" => without; "-theism" => belief in the existence of a god
> or gods.
>
>
> ultra-liberal religions, such as UU and Buddhism], some are
> religion-neutral, and some are hostile to all forms of organized
> religion. There is no more uniformity among atheists than there
> is among theists - or among philosophers for that matter.
>
> Atheists have only that one simple idea in common. KEEP it simple
> [Scouters]!
>
> - neil
I'll sign on to this.
hammer
Neil Savage
In article <34B287...@usaor.net>, me@myself.i writes...
>... the statement 'there is no INDEPENDANT evidence'
>implies that there can never be any, for what will constitute
>independance?
>
Indeed, when it comes to God, there can never be any. The ancients knew
this [why we forget old wisdom I do not understand]. A translation
from "Tales of the Dervishes" by Idries Shah states, "The created are
not informed about divinity. There is no way in science by means of the
ordinary intellect."
>For my edification: what are some godly assumptions that you can
>DISprove?
>
Well, I'm not prepared to go into it in depth this NG but the assumption
of omniscence [all knowing] is disproved by the "arrow of time".
And the assumption of omnipotence [all powerful] is upset by pure
reason and logic [the rock-so-heavy-that-God-could-not-lift-it paradox];
as is the assumption of a 'creator' [And who created God? Well, come to
think of it, it's huge turtles on the backs of even larger turtles
all the way down. :-) ]
I just finished reading Steve Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."
His is no 'ordinary' intellect! He makes a fine case that if God did
exist (that's IF, I say), there would have been nothing for Him to do.
Hawking talks a lot about "God". But it's clear he has no truck with that
'supreme being' business. This the atheists know: that theists are sadly
mistaken about most of the details they cling precariously to. But THAT
is only part of the story of human spirituality, read further...
>The (self-styled) atheists I have encountered on Usenet, in real life,
>and in the public sector have mostly characterized believers as foolish,
>intellectual children who delude themselves with obvious falsehoods.
>That is, they are CERTAIN of their belief that 'there is no god.' I
>maintain this is the mark of the zealot.
>
Agreed that these sorts of atheists are common. But such 'patronizing'
is considered 'bad form' - not sportsmanlike. In BSA we have the 12th
point of the Scout law that says, in effect, "try to dispell such ideas
and, if possible, walk a mile (a day) in the other fellow's moccasins and
see if you can appreciate where he is coming from." Ask yourself, if there
is no God, why do people seek for one? Also, consider the wise remark
of the Buddha: when asked by the Hundu priests of his day, "Is there a
God?" he replied, "There is and there is not." Atheists and theists are
like two sides of a coin. Where the one is you will have the other.
It's like the Chinese symbol of the cosmos - 'yin' and 'yang'. We belong
together (we may even deserve each other). The one keeps the other in
check - so that we are constantly reminded not to go 'overboard'
with self-satisfaction. We all need "God" at least once in a while.
The atheist reminds us that a "God" so insecure as to require a bunch of
faithful followers in temples worshipping at His feet is a prideful kind of
FAKE God, not worthy of having even a lowly termite as a follower.
Take care,
- neil
Brian Westley
me@meeself.i writes:
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> me@meeself.i writes:
>> ...
>> >Be that as it may, by making a "point" to refuse to say a possibly
>> >meaningless word ('god') they have placed themselves in the camp of the
>> >dissenter. If we're talking about Cub Scouts, I personally guarrantee
>> >the axe being ground is the parents', not the childrens'.
>>
>> What? I was a cub scout when I was about ten, and I
>> didn't say the word 'god' because I was an atheist.
>>
>> Are you now insisting that there are no atheists that young?
>>
>> So much for your "personal guarantee".
>Yes I am asserting that.
Well, you're wrong.
>I am asserting that no ten-year-old has the
>experience to speak with authority on terms of atheism, or theism; that
>a child of that age can only mouth platitudes which have been fed to
>them by others.
>You may have thought you "were" an atheist at 10. I think you were not.
Well, what you think departs from reality at several points.
>Readers of this thread will have to decide for themselves.
Yes, whether I know what I believed at age 10, versus the assertion
of a complete stranger that *he* knows better than I what *I*
thought.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
R.F.Locke
me@meeself.i wrote:
>
> reeeeeeeegards,
> hammer
Now aren't you glad we brought the other thread over from
rec.backcountry?
Admit it...you like it here.....c'mon, admit it. 8-)
- Rich -
Mathew E Goldstein
me@meeself.i wrote:
: My argument is that the
: BSA have the right to restrict participation by atheists because *they*
: find it unreasonable.
It depends on the details. Organizations which are deemed not to be
'places of public accommodation' may be able to discriminate against
anyone for any reason from the standpoint of federal law but still be
subject to state anti-discrimination laws. Even organizations which are
private can have a contractual relationship with public institutions that
obligates the private organization not to discriminate.
A police department sponsors a cadet program to promote law enforcement as
a career among local high school students. Students who join the cadet
program meet once a week at the police department where they are taught
about the day to day work of police officers by current police officers.
Can the police department refuse to accept participation of interested
students because they are female? Because they are Mormon?
The police department decides to offer their cadet program under the
auspices of a private organizations. The police department and this
private organization sign a partnership agreement, a legal contract. Now
the high school age participants join the cadet program throught the
private organization which also provides insurance coverage for the
participants. Can the private organization refuse to accept participation
of interested because they are female? Because they are atheists?
If the answer to the former is no and the later is yes then all public
agencies have a very simple way to avoid their obligation not to
discriminate under the equal protection clause of the constitution. They
simply contract with a private organization and let the private
organization do the discriminating by proxy. This is exactly what
BSA is trying to do. It is doubtful that this is a legal arrangement.
Another example. The BSA Learning for Life (LFL) program requires school
administrators and teachers to serve as LFL leaders during regualre
school hours and it requires all leaders to sign the BSA Declaration of
Religious Principles. BSA is trying to enforce a political-religious
test for public school teachers to qualify for a public school teaching
assignment!
Mathew E Goldstein
me@myself.i wrote:
: Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
: > me@myself.i wrote:
: > : The atheist who declares with absolute surety that "god is dead" shows
: > : themselves to be a zealot of the first magnitude, a direct descendant of
: > : the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their ilk.
: >
: > Why the double standard?
: Although your question is non sequitur, the fact is it's not a "double
: standard;" it's a *standard.* The BSA says "Atheists need not apply."
The argument that you are positing on behalf of singling out atheists for
restrictions on membership clearly employs a double standard. This is
because the argument remains the same when the words 'atheist' and 'dead'
are replaced with 'theist' and 'alive'. It would not be a double
standard if you applied the same argument to theists as you apply to
atheists and concluded that all atheists and theists who declare their
atheism or theism with absolute surety are justifiably excluded from BSA.
All of this is immaterial, however, since BSA makes no such distinction
between different catagories of atheists/agnostics according to some
measure of zealotry as evidenced by the twins in California who make no
claims to certainty. Nor is even attempting any such distinction fair
if the same distinction is not applied to theists. Nor is it practical
to attempt such a standard as an admission criteria. Nor should claims of
certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
claim).
Mathew E Goldstein
: > Nevertheless, let's assume
: > your interpretation is what BSA policy is all about. Even if you feel so
: > confident as to speak for other parent's children, should your opinion on
: > this matter be enforced by edict on the other parent's children? Even
: > children who are 14? 16? 18? 20? (The age range for career Explorer posts
: > varies but seems to cluster around 14-20). And why would you want to be
: > so harsh with a younger child who may, in his own mind, be well-motivated
: > and just want to be honest about his non-belief?
: I made no attempt to speak for other people, or their children. I made
: no attempt to speak for the BSA, either, other than as an Eagle Scout
: and once-and-future member. (Nor is there need for me to. The BSA has
: spoken loudly and clearly their thoughts on this matter.) I would not
: intentionally be harsh with any child; in fact, I think all children
: have the *right* to religion, just as they have the *right* to Aesop,
: the Grimms, Mama Goose, and all the other 'stories' which teach them
: about life. The absolute 'facts' of these stories are irrelevant, for
: their lessons are immutable. More on this below.
It would be nice if we all could so easily dismiss the consequences of
our choices simply by asserting that the consequences are unintended. The
problem I have is not so much with your arguments, although your
characterizations of atheists are negative stereotypes, but the
applicability of the arguments you make to the issue of BSA membership
restrictions. There are lots of good arguments people can make on behalf
of the advantage of belief in god, for example, that would be bad
arguments if they were employed on behalf of ostracizing people who
believed in no god. You fail to make this distinction.
: > The example that such community and authority endorsed exclusion
: > establishes for other children (and for adults) is clear: Non-belief is
: > anti-American (BSA is a patriotic assoication), non-belief is a character
: > deficiency (BSA builds ethical and moral character), etc.
: Untrue. I forget the exact name of the fallacy you are committing, but
: I recognize it nonetheless. BSA is definitely a patriotic organization,
: but no one suggests they are the be-all, end-all arbiter of 'what is
: patriotic.' IOW, the BSA 'believes' scouts should wear neckerchiefs,
: and a scout who "REFUSES" to wear a neckerchief is not enhancing his
: chances of becoming an Eagle scout, or even remaining a scout at all.
: This does not imply that non-neckerchief-wearing people are unpatriotic.
: As to ethical/moral: morals are ethics with a nod to god. Not
: believing in god is EITHER immoral or, more accurately, not
: appropriately addressed with the term at all. Even if you disagree with
: my definition of morals (as many people do), and even given your use of
: the term 'ethical,' the BSA policy concerning belief in god only
: indicates that an Atheist does not meet the moral/ethical qualifications
: TO BE A SCOUT. Incidentally, they do not qualify to be a Roman Catholic
: Priest, either. For the purposes of this argument, the two examples are
: INDISTINGUISHABLE and I defy you to reasonably posit otherwise.
: >Some people may
: > believe this is all true, fine, but you seem to be denying any such
: > negative implications from the apriori exclusionary policy in order to
: > qualify yourself as being liberal while still defending the policy. Could
: > it be that hidden in your argument is a personal bias against non-belief
: > that is only superficially masked by your unflatering depiction of
: > religion as 'man made'?
: No. It is not possible, as I cannot in good faith classify myself as a
: "believer,"
: though I was once and am open to becoming one again some day. And while
: "unflattering" is technically apt here, I trust you won't make the
: mistake that it means 'derogatory.'
: (Liberal! LOL!)
: > And why is it O.K. for you to characterize
: > religion as 'man made' while declaring the use of the term 'evolve' by the
: > person on the other side of the argument to be an 'insult'? Are you
: > suggesting that religions did not originally characterize themselves as
: > revealing the divine word?
: >
: ? First, I didn't *declare* anything. I *asked* if the term was being
: employed as shorthand for something akin to "get your knuckles off the
: ground" (which I would indeed take as an insult).
: Second, I am not (strictly speaking) 'characterizing' religion as being
: man-made any more than I am capable of 'characterizing' the Earth as
: being essentially round. These things are patent and self-evident,
: beyond the ken you or I to debate.
: Third: huh? Of course, all religions--by definition--lay claim to
: the inside skinny on divinity and the will/purpose/plan therof. Even
: Atheists, loosly defined here as a religion, claim to know the true
: nature of divinity (null).
: The connective logic of your paragraph eludes me.
: > We are talking about accommodating non-believers, not about breaking
: > rules. No one has any argument with the need to understand and follow the
: > rules, the issue here is about the propriety of a rule that endorses
: > biased exclusion of non-believers, no other rules are in dispute. It is
: > exactly because rules are so important that we should take extra care in
: > setting the rules so that they are as objective as possible.
: You contradict yourself, and boldly. You are talking about accomodating
: people who break the rules by being non-believers. Rule(believe in god)
: + Belief (there is no god) =broken rule. Surely you must see that this
: is incontestible?
: The issue here is a rule which rankles people who either do not believe
: in god or who feel the BSA has no right to make its own rules, which are
: perfectly objective in spite of the fact that they rankle you!
: And now, the below part:
: Belief in god, belief in country, belief in camping are pretty much the
: defining characteristics of scouting (if not necessarily in that
: order). ALL aspects of scout law, and the attendant oath, are derived
: from these three principles. Any organization which does not adhere to
: these principles is NOT a scout troop, even though it wear the
: accoutrements of scouting. If a boy can't bear the thought of sleeping
: in a tent, his chances of attaining Eagle rank are slim to none. If a
: Scout wipes his nose with the US flag (or any nation's flag, frankly) he
: again will have little hope of attaining Eagle rank. Do you see where
: I'm going?
: Why would an organization tolerate violation of its own rules?
: Why would someone join an organization whose rules they find abhorrent?
: Or allow their child to do so?
: Who would dictate to a private organization what its rules should be,
: and not lie awake at night for shame?
: regards,
: hammer
: ps ya know this is the very DEFINITION of MOOT!!! :)
--
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know
nothing about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Nonbeliever Antidiscrimination Project:
<URL:http://mason.gmu.edu/~mgoldste/index.bsa.html>
New, Boy Scouts of America units chartered to taxpayer supported
institutions: <URL:http://mason.gmu.edu/~mgoldste/bsa_index_examples.html>
Mathew E Goldstein
me@myself.i wrote:
: I think you speak in error when you define 'atheist,' but since there is
: no official 'atheist' organization I suppose you may define it any way
: you choose. Linguistically, however, with the prefix "a-" meaning
: "anti" and "theist" meaning, essentially, "god," I shall stand by my
: Nietzchesque interpretation. I might suggest that what you describe is
: closer to my own current philosophy, which I (loosely, loosely) call
: 'agnosticism' wherein 'gnost' implies 'knoweledge.' That is, I'm not
: comfortable categorizing any possible Divinity. So while I'm not about
: to look you up and punch you in the nose, I must reject your definition
: of atheism much as I might reject those plucky youths who grafitto the
: 'symbol' of anarchy on subway cars.
Neil's definition is atheism is correct, he is certainly not in error.
Atheists are comfortable saying that they do not believe in god,
theists are comfortable saying they believe in god, agnostics
are not comfortable with applying either catagorization to themselves.
Trying to narrow the definitions more than this is the error.
Your explanations for your own agnostics beliefs are quite good and
sensible to me, much better than your characterization of other people's
beliefs.
: For my edification: what are some godly assumptions that you can
: DISprove?
I have read interesting arguments (see www.infidels.org for some online),
but nothing that merits the characterization of 'proof'. No one needs to
prove that lower taxes will create greater economic activity will create
more tax revenue before they call themselves a Republican (identify
themselves with conservative U.S. politcal party). 'Proofs' are basically
reserved for mathematics, logic and the sciences. Requiring proofs
outside of that context in the messy and complex world of every day life
is not realistic.
Mathew E Goldstein
James K Nelsen (jne...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: The
: other aspect is that many scout units in the United States are sponsored
: by churches or other religious organizations that might not take to kindly
: to having atheists among their children.
BSA makes some membership policy distinctions between various programs,
allowing avowed atheists and homosexuals to participate in the Learning
for Life program, allowing females to be Explorer Scouts. Would it be too
difficult for BSA to also make membership policy distinctions between
Scout units whose charter partner is a religious or other private
organization and Scout units whose charter partner is a public institution
or place of public accomodation?
Mathew E Goldstein
me@meeself.i wrote:
: mgoldste wrote:
: > In the court case in California involving twins who were kicked out of
: > their (PTO/PTA?) Cub Scout den because they lip synced 'god', the twins
: > both say they are (and always were) uncertain about the existence or
: > nature of god.
: Be that as it may, by making a "point" to refuse to say a possibly
: meaningless word ('god') they have placed themselves in the camp of the
: dissenter. If we're talking about Cub Scouts, I personally guarrantee
: the axe being ground is the parents', not the childrens'.
Well, it is reasonable to conclude that the parents likely are playing
a role particularly since it would be very difficult for someone at
that age to go to court without parental support. To characterize the
relationship between the parents and children beyond that is not possible.
That you nevertheless seem to be certain about your ability to make such
a characterization, having enough absolute surety to 'personally
guarantee' a negative characterization of a relationship within
someone else's family, could this be evidence that you are a zealot?
In the California case, the courts issued an injunction requiring BSA to
re-admit the twins while the case was being adjudicated, and they are
close to qualifying as Eagle Scouts. They maintain that their decision
to not say oaths to god is being made on their own initiative.
: There is nothing
: circular in suggesting there is no proof for the absence of god (a
: creator) while suggesting that creation is possible, though not
: conclusive, evidence of a creator.
From where originates this odd requirement that atheists prove their
beliefs? Nobody has to prove their religious belief before they can claim
that they are Scouts. You seem to have an axe to grind against atheism
and you appear at times to be using a discussion about BSA membership
policy as a vehicle to stereotype atheists as unreasonable zealots. Is it
zealous to question the propriety of enforced requirements for public
statements of orthodox belief that provide no alternative for people who
do not share the orthodox belief? If the rules were modified so that
accomodation was within the rules what would be a problem? There is no
proof for the absence of god. So what? What is the relevance of having
proof?
Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)
> >adapt to the needs of it's members if the organization refuses to listen
> >to it's members it has failed in it's purpose. Scouting is there for the
> >youth members and any time we forget this we have failed, we have failed
> >scouting, we have failed our youth, and we have failed ourselvs.
> Good on you, Roger! You are Canadian and I am a citizen of the USA
> but we interpret Scouting in the same way - not as an exclusive
> 'outing' club for conservative religionists, but as a organization
> that must of necessity adhere to pluralistic principles as you have
> described above.
my 13 years as a youth member of scouting. Scouting has, in my view,
served it's purpose, if we only more people would put aside their
differences for the greater good of scouting, there is a wonderfull line
from a song that has been runnign throughmy head as I read these
articles "When divided we stand, united we fall" - Defleapard. It is so
true, the more arguing we do, the weaker we become. I quit transfered
scout groups at one point because of the arguments between leaders, as
soon as that air of hostility apears the program quits being fun and
starts to become painfull, people dread scouting instead of looking
forward to it. Scouting is a place where many people can get together
and put aside their differences, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no
one is entitled to impose it on others.
I'm glad someone else aggrees with my views, after reading this
newsgroup I've started to fear that too many people were too wrapped up
in arguing.
> Your views would fit in well here in my local council.
I'm glad to hear that there are councils who still have the scouting
spirit. I'm unsure as to how membership reqquirements are done in the
USA, in Canada our official form has a section asking religion, many
people leave it blank (myself included) and I have friends who have
written down athiest on occasion, as far as we can tell no one looks at
that part of the form... in fact the form the group uses doesn't even
have the field.
YIS
/\ Roger Heward (Green1) /\
_/\| |/\_ Knights of Cerberus Rover Crew _/\| |/\_
\ / Edgemont 193rd Calgary, Canada \ /
>______< gre...@scout.net ICQ# 55459407 >______<
|| http://home.scout.net/edgemont193 ||
J. Hugh Sullivan
wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>su...@mindspring.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>>>How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in god,
>>>and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of god?
>>White trash???
>More true scouting spirit from Hugh.
>Next, he calls Jews Kikes.
The little curly things with periods underneath indicate that it was a
question. I note that the intelligent people understood.
Hugh
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
su...@mindspring.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>>su...@mindspring.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>>>>How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in god,
>>>>and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of god?
>>>White trash???
>>More true scouting spirit from Hugh.
>>Next, he calls Jews Kikes.
>The little curly things with periods underneath indicate that it was a
>question.
And the context indicates it was a rhetorical question,
not a question.
>I note that the intelligent people understood.
I note you're still unapologetically bigoted.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Mathew E Goldstein
m2Amyself.i wrote:
: Untrue. I forget the exact name of the fallacy you are committing, but
: I recognize it nonetheless. BSA is definitely a patriotic organization,
: but no one suggests they are the be-all, end-all arbiter of 'what is
: patriotic.' IOW, the BSA 'believes' scouts should wear neckerchiefs,
: and a scout who "REFUSES" to wear a neckerchief is not enhancing his
: chances of becoming an Eagle scout, or even remaining a scout at all.
: This does not imply that non-neckerchief-wearing people are unpatriotic.
BSA does not say that the 'best kind of citizen' wears neckerchiefs.
BSA does say that the 'no member can grow into the best kind of citizen
without recognizing his obligation to god'. There is no need to claim
implication, it is explicit in the Declaration of Religious Principles.
: As to ethical/moral: morals are ethics with a nod to god. Not
: believing in god is EITHER immoral or, more accurately, not
: appropriately addressed with the term at all. Even if you disagree with
: my definition of morals (as many people do), and even given your use of
: the term 'ethical,' the BSA policy concerning belief in god only
: indicates that an Atheist does not meet the moral/ethical qualifications
: TO BE A SCOUT. Incidentally, they do not qualify to be a Roman Catholic
: Priest, either. For the purposes of this argument, the two examples are
: INDISTINGUISHABLE and I defy you to reasonably posit otherwise.
Public school teachers do not recruit during school hours in their
classrooms for the Roman Catholic church. The United Way does not raise
money for the Roman Catholic seminary. PTOs and PTAs do not sponsor Roman
Catholic training. Etc. etc. The list of BSA public sector entanglements
is quit long - federal, state, and local governments, public businesses,
public sector professional associations, ... none of which can legally
have the same type of relationship with the Catholic church.
: You contradict yourself, and boldly. You are talking about accomodating
: people who break the rules by being non-believers. Rule(believe in god)
: + Belief (there is no god) =broken rule. Surely you must see that this
: is incontestible?
This makes about as much sense as declaring that opposing the monarchy
in some kingdom is breaking the rules therefore anti-monarchists are
advocates of breaking the rules. Argueing against a particular rule is
not equivelant to advocating breaking rules in the plural. You have gone
from the singular tense to the plural multiple times in your argumentation
- making individual claims and then drawing plural conclusions - as when
you begin an argument 'the atheist who claims ...' and follow that with a
declaration that 'atheists are zealots' based on 'the atheist'.
: The issue here is a rule which rankles people who either do not believe
: in god or who feel the BSA has no right to make its own rules, which are
: perfectly objective in spite of the fact that they rankle you!
A federal court has declared BSA to not be a place of public accomodation.
Therefore, BSA arguably has a right to deny membership to hispanics and
Mormons and anyone it wants. So can BSA deny membership to Hindus who
apply for membership with a PTO/PTA charter partner Cub Scout den? No?
So why can they deny such membership to an atheist?
: Belief in god, belief in country, belief in camping are pretty much the
: defining characteristics of scouting (if not necessarily in that
: order). ALL aspects of scout law, and the attendant oath, are derived
: from these three principles.
Do not confuse the distinct issues of where someone derives their values
from what those values are. Do we judge people based on what values
they manifest or do we judge people on where they claim to derive those
values? Are you arguing for giving precedence of the latter over the
former?
: Any organization which does not adhere to
: these principles is NOT a scout troop, even though it wear the
: accoutrements of scouting. If a boy can't bear the thought of sleeping
: in a tent, his chances of attaining Eagle rank are slim to none. If a
: Scout wipes his nose with the US flag (or any nation's flag, frankly) he
: again will have little hope of attaining Eagle rank. Do you see where
: I'm going?
So far so good, now for the conclusion.
: Why would an organization tolerate violation of its own rules?
Generally speaking, organizations want to be perceived as enforcing their
rules. We seem to agree here.
: Why would someone join an organization whose rules they find abhorrent?
: Or allow their child to do so?
Are you saying that atheists find BSA's rules abhorrent? This is simply
not true. They want to join because they find BSA's values to be
compatable with their own values. You keep trying to unfairly attach a
lot of negative baggage to being an atheist that just is not there.
: Who would dictate to a private organization what its rules should be,
: and not lie awake at night for shame?
Who would dictate to public organizations whose religious beliefs are
acceptable and whose are not? The shameless BSA. The same BSA that
shamelessly makes mythical claims in it's fund raising letters that there
is a campaign to remove god from BSA.
Brian Westley
sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) writes:
>In article <693pat$5nf$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>writes...
>>... the BSA kicks out atheists, period.
> Not true. I can personally attest that I was NOT "kicked out" when my
> NG statement was passed down the chain of command to my DE. I was
> simply advised not to put the name of the council in my signature line.
What I meant by that was that the BSA kicks out atheists, as opposed
to only kicking out vocal atheists.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>And the context indicates it was a rhetorical question,
>not a question.
>>I note that the intelligent people understood.
>I note you're still unapologetically bigoted.
Isn't everyone???
Hugh
m...@meeself.i
Yes, I'm glad. Swear to god!
ha ha,
regards,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
> me@meeself.i wrote:
> : mgoldste wrote:
> : > In the court case in California involving twins who were kicked out of
> : > their (PTO/PTA?) Cub Scout den because they lip synced 'god', the twins
> : > both say they are (and always were) uncertain about the existence or
> : > nature of god.
>
> : Be that as it may, by making a "point" to refuse to say a possibly
> : meaningless word ('god') they have placed themselves in the camp of the
> : dissenter. If we're talking about Cub Scouts, I personally guarrantee
> : the axe being ground is the parents', not the childrens'.
>
> Well, it is reasonable to conclude that the parents likely are playing
> a role particularly since it would be very difficult for someone at
> that age to go to court without parental support. To characterize the
> relationship between the parents and children beyond that is not possible.
> That you nevertheless seem to be certain about your ability to make such
> a characterization, having enough absolute surety to 'personally
> guarantee' a negative characterization of a relationship within
> someone else's family, could this be evidence that you are a zealot?
>
Yes, I can be a zealot sometimes; we all can. The comment was not meant
to be taken as a negative. The "personal guarantee" thing was
rhetorical, even hyperbolic. What I meant was that *most* (a hedge
against pedagogues, but necessary with this crowd) people realize that
10-year olds don't know jack. They have certain mores instilled in
them, and may act on those mores with the apparant conviction of an
'adult.' When we see a group of children paraded in front of television
cameras in order to influence the viewing public's opinion on matters
such as, say, capital punishment, we are generally affected by their
precociousness (either pleased or nauseated), and if the kids happen to
be espousing our own viewpoint we may muse that there is 'hope for the
youth of today.' But those of us who truly believe that 10-year old
children have the sophistication to appreciate complex situations and
render competant philosophy are outnumbered by those of us who don't.
It's blatant ageism. (incidentally, in my opinion, the age of 'informed
consent,' as it were, coincides roughly with the age at which you earn
your first rent payment).
Anyone who disagrees with my notion above, don't bother posting to tell
me how sophisticated children really are--you won't convince me, and I
won't convince you. That's another 'personal guarantee.'
> In the California case, the courts issued an injunction requiring BSA to
> re-admit the twins while the case was being adjudicated, and they are
> close to qualifying as Eagle Scouts. They maintain that their decision
> to not say oaths to god is being made on their own initiative.
>
> : There is nothing
> : circular in suggesting there is no proof for the absence of god (a
> : creator) while suggesting that creation is possible, though not
> : conclusive, evidence of a creator.
>
> From where originates this odd requirement that atheists prove their
> beliefs?
I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask someone who feels that way. IMO, in
the United States, you're entitled to your own unmolested beliefs (as
long as they remain withing the boundaries of the law).
(Laws=Reasonable is another matter entirely.)
> Nobody has to prove their religious belief before they can claim
> that they are Scouts.
Correct, and one of my points all along.
You seem to have an axe to grind against atheism
Hardly. I may be one myself. I *do* have an axe to grind with atheists
who blurt out anti-theistic buffoonery...and buffoons in general. I am
in no way implying, or even intimating, that you or anyone who has
participated in this thread is a buffoon--but they are out there.
> and you appear at times to be using a discussion about BSA membership
> policy as a vehicle to stereotype atheists as unreasonable zealots.
I'm suggesting that 'atheists' who casually dismiss 'believers' as
unreasonable are themselves being unreasonable--and vice versa. You
ascribe to me beliefs I do not have and arguments I have not made.
Against this, I have no defense.
>Is it
> zealous to question the propriety of enforced requirements for public
> statements of orthodox belief that provide no alternative for people who
> do not share the orthodox belief?
Perhaps. It is, however, "fascist" in the dictionary sense (The Nazis
do not get claim on a perfectly benign word). It may or may not be
undesireable.
> If the rules were modified so that
> accomodation was within the rules what would be a problem?
That is for the organization to decide. It could result in a completely
different organization which in turn might be better or worse than the
original at meeting the goals of the original. People not within the
ranks or auxilliaries of the organization have a right to petition it
with grievances, but they ought not demand recognition or affirmation of
their views.
There is no
> proof for the absence of god. So what? What is the relevance of having
> proof?
The relevance is this: The BSA thinks there is a god. They say if you
want to be a scout, you have to think so too--actually, they require
that you affirm your willingness to do 'your duty' to god. They don't
care if your god is Jesus, Buddha, Al Lah, one of the Hindu team,
Yaweh, or the Lucky Charms leprechaun. But they see kids who insist on
telling the world "I have No god!" as being, well, godless, and
incompatible with their membership requirements. I say this is their
right, although 'Merlyn' has given me much to think about as to whether
the BSA improperly accepts 'public' funding (if they in fact do, then
that impropriety does not negate the validity of their membership
requirements--it only points out a hypocrisy which must be resolved).
Other than that, I have merely suggested that as long as you're
guessing--which we all are--it is *more* reasonable to assume that
creation was created by a creator than it is to assume that creation was
not in fact created by a creator--the exact nature of any 'creator' has
never been stipulated by me. "More reasonable" (as used by me) ought
not to be interpreted as "absolutely correct." Reason suggests that the
Sun will rise tomorrow; it does not ensure that it will. Reason and
Logic are only infallible if the input products of an argument are fully
known and correct, and such is not the case when reasoning the existence
of god. Still, potato-chip analogies aside, the existence of a clock
*suggests* (does not prove) a clock-maker. The existence of a clock does
nothing to suggest the absence of a clock-maker. Arguments to the
contrary of my previous sentence are pedantic.
If you are "certain" that there is no god whatsoever, of any form, with
any meaning, by any interpretation, then you are (at this time)
unqualified for memebership in the BSA.
If you are unsure of what 'god' is, but are able to construct a personal
'god,'--which, in truth need not be omnipotent or omniscient, only
meta-you--then you should have no problem affirming that you will act in
accordance with this god's 'wishes' ("I swear I will not violate the law
of gravity"). If you refuse to do this, it is because you are a
point-prover, an iconoclast, and a renegade--qualities not necessarily
undesireable, but so in the eyes of the policymakers of the BSA.
Regards,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
> >su...@mindspring.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
> >>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>
> >>>How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in god,
> >>>and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of god?
>
> >>White trash???
>
> >More true scouting spirit from Hugh.
> >Next, he calls Jews Kikes.
>
> question. I note that the intelligent people understood.
>
>
> >---
> >Merlyn LeRoy
Hugh,
I am generally regarded as being intelligent, and I regard myself as
intelligent. I am certainly educated, and well-read. I consider myself
skilled in the use of language.
The sarcasm you claim was implied by the device of three question marks
after the words "white trash" eluded me.
I offer my apologies if my inference that you are a knee-jerk nonthinker
were unfounded.
However, I suggest that the ultimate measure of a communicator is
whether or not the audience receives the message as intended--in this
case, a portion of it did not.
regards,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
WRONG!WRONG!WRONG! YOU BIG DOODY-HEAD!!!!!
er, sorry. I just wanted to see what it was like to respond to a
well-reasoned post with screeching nonsense. It was unsatisfying.
Neil Savage wrote:
>
> In article <34B287...@usaor.net>, me@myself.i writes...
> >... the statement 'there is no INDEPENDANT evidence'
> >implies that there can never be any, for what will constitute
> >independance?
> >
>
> Indeed, when it comes to God, there can never be any. The ancients knew
> this [why we forget old wisdom I do not understand]. A translation
> from "Tales of the Dervishes" by Idries Shah states, "The created are
> not informed about divinity. There is no way in science by means of the
> ordinary intellect."
>
Roger that.
> >For my edification: what are some godly assumptions that you can
> >DISprove?
> >
>
> Well, I'm not prepared to go into it in depth this NG but the assumption
> of omniscence [all knowing] is disproved by the "arrow of time".
> And the assumption of omnipotence [all powerful] is upset by pure
> reason and logic [the rock-so-heavy-that-God-could-not-lift-it paradox];
> as is the assumption of a 'creator' [And who created God? Well, come to
> think of it, it's huge turtles on the backs of even larger turtles
> all the way down. :-) ]
>
Clarify for me the 'arrow of time' as used in this instance, please. If
you mean that time is unidirectional, we do not "know" this to be a
fact. Given that some respectable work has suggested it is less
improbable than impossible, it need not be relevant to any theoretical
meta-beings. Paradoxes (by definition) defy logic and operate outside
its bounds, they can therefore not be used in place of or in opposition
to logic, except as rough illustrations (or tricks). Only
demonstrable/observable deviances from postulate can refute logic with
certainty. The speculative existance of infinite gods can hardly be used
as evidence of no gods--that would be a paradox, of sorts.
> I just finished reading Steve Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."
> His is no 'ordinary' intellect! He makes a fine case that if God did
> exist (that's IF, I say), there would have been nothing for Him to do.
> Hawking talks a lot about "God". But it's clear he has no truck with that
> 'supreme being' business. This the atheists know: that theists are sadly
> mistaken about most of the details they cling precariously to. But THAT
> is only part of the story of human spirituality, read further...
>
Unfortunately, you have just committed the error to which my entire
participation in this thread has attempted to chastise:
"> This the atheists know: that theists are sadly
>mistaken about most of the details they cling precariously to."
I am too weary of this exercise to offer any rebuttal but "sez you."
> >The (self-styled) atheists I have encountered on Usenet, in real life,
> >and in the public sector have mostly characterized believers as foolish,
> >intellectual children who delude themselves with obvious falsehoods.
> >That is, they are CERTAIN of their belief that 'there is no god.' I
> >maintain this is the mark of the zealot.
> >
>
> Agreed that these sorts of atheists are common. But such 'patronizing'
> is considered 'bad form' - not sportsmanlike.
We could not agree more.
In BSA we have the 12th
> point of the Scout law that says, in effect, "try to dispell such ideas
> and, if possible, walk a mile (a day) in the other fellow's moccasins and
> see if you can appreciate where he is coming from." Ask yourself, if there
> is no God, why do people seek for one? Also, consider the wise remark
> of the Buddha: when asked by the Hundu priests of his day, "Is there a
> God?" he replied, "There is and there is not." Atheists and theists are
> like two sides of a coin. Where the one is you will have the other.
>
Not necessarily, but in practice this seems correct.
> It's like the Chinese symbol of the cosmos - 'yin' and 'yang'. We belong
> together (we may even deserve each other). The one keeps the other in
> check - so that we are constantly reminded not to go 'overboard'
> with self-satisfaction. We all need "God" at least once in a while.
>
Not, apparantly, all of us--at least not in terms all would agree to.
> The atheist reminds us that a "God" so insecure as to require a bunch of
> faithful followers in temples worshipping at His feet is a prideful kind of
> FAKE God, not worthy of having even a lowly termite as a follower.
>
I rather think it is now you who are attempting to speak for all
atheists, as I'm certain many of them would not count this point among
their prime tenets. I don't disagree with your premise, mind you, but
it is entirely possible that IF god exists, he is exactly the sort of
demagogue you describe. That might make him less worthy of the mantle
of godhead--but who's to say? Your Dervishes quotation above would
counsel, "not us."
> Take care,
> - neil
You too. Regards,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
> me@myself.i wrote:
> : Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
> : > me@myself.i wrote:
> : > : The atheist who declares with absolute surety that "god is dead" shows
> : > : themselves to be a zealot of the first magnitude, a direct descendant of
> : > : the crusaders, inquisitionists, and their ilk.
> : >
> : > Why the double standard?
>
> : Although your question is non sequitur, the fact is it's not a "double
> : standard;" it's a *standard.* The BSA says "Atheists need not apply."
>
> The argument that you are positing on behalf of singling out atheists for
> restrictions on membership clearly employs a double standard. This is
> because the argument remains the same when the words 'atheist' and 'dead'
> are replaced with 'theist' and 'alive'. It would not be a double
> standard if you applied the same argument to theists as you apply to
> atheists and concluded that all atheists and theists who declare their
> atheism or theism with absolute surety are justifiably excluded from BSA.
>
Demonstrably incorrect. Watch me:
"The theist who declares with surety that god is alive shows himself to
be a zealot. The ABSA (Atheist Boy Scouts of America" have as a
requirement that none of their members have a specific, defined belief
in God as a Supreme Being. Therefore, any one refusing to swear the
ABSA oath "On my honor, I have no clue as to what God is, or i think
he's dead" will be declined membership."
Sounds reasonable to me. It also sounds like an organization I want no
part of, but that's neither here nor there.
Ah, but you say this proves that the standard is "double." If you
substitute "elephant" for "atheist," you will find that the argument
remains the same--elephents remain ineligible for membership. It's a
single, coherent standard.
> All of this is immaterial, however, since BSA makes no such distinction
> between different catagories of atheists/agnostics according to some
> measure of zealotry as evidenced by the twins in California who make no
> claims to certainty.
Incorrect. In your instance, the distinction was apparant from the
refusal to even utter the notional word 'god,' despite the fact that
said word can be interpreted with such latitude that only a point-prover
or true "anti-godder" would refuse.
> Nor is even attempting any such distinction fair
> if the same distinction is not applied to theists. Nor is it practical
> to attempt such a standard as an admission criteria. Nor should claims of
> certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
> people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
> claim).
Your first sentence is silly; there is a clear distinction between the
set of people who beleieve in "God" and those who do 'not.' Your second
sentence is self-serving in that you WISH it were not as practical as it
is, and are doing your best to make it impractical. Your third sentence
reiterates our prime point of divergence, namely, that it is for the BSA
to decide the relevance of theism to Scouting.
Here's an idea: start your own organization, and call it "Matt
Goldstein's Youth-oriented Organization." Come up with a set of rules,
principles, beliefs, and activities that you think will help mold young
people into the type of citizens which will most benefit society.
Perhaps this proposed "MGYOO" will, in time, achieve the respect which
the BSA has earned for itself, and perhaps the highest award the "MGYOO"
chooses to bestow upon its participants (if in fact you choose to issue
awards) will carry with it the same esteem as does Eagle Scout rank.
But let's hope you don't employ any knuckleheaded, illogical,
unprovable, discriminatory beliefs such as "all MGYOO members must wear
clothing--" because there are people in the world who will leap at the
chance to point out your awful bigotry.
etc,
hammer
m...@meeself.i
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
> BSA makes some membership policy distinctions between various programs,
> allowing avowed atheists and homosexuals to participate in the Learning
> for Life program, allowing females to be Explorer Scouts. Would it be too
> difficult for BSA to also make membership policy distinctions between
> Scout units whose charter partner is a religious or other private
> organization and Scout units whose charter partner is a public institution
> or place of public accomodation?
That's not a bad idea in principle, but to play the Devil's Advocate
(I'm kidding! I'm kidding! Figure of speech! Yeesh.) some would say
that would 'water down' the franchise and reduce its esteem in the eyes
of the community.
I'm not necessarily saying that though, so don't expect me to engage
anyone on the subject.
hammer
Neil Savage
In article <696r0c$7...@portal.gmu.edu>, mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu
(Mathew E Goldstein) writes...
>... Would it be too
>difficult for BSA to also make membership policy distinctions between
>Scout units whose charter partner is a religious or other private
>organization and Scout units whose charter partner is a public institution
>or place of public accomodation?
I for one would be overjoyed to see this become the official policy
of the BSA. It would recognize a kind of "home rule" or local control,
consistent with the fact that different factions of the community have
different standards and values pertaining to the '3Gs'.
However, there would still be a problem in sparsely populated areas
wherever conservative relgious opinions were widely held. The community
might have to make 'either or' choices. I wouldn't want to be an
atheist Scout in the 'bible belt' for example. I suppose that Scout
would, in effect, become a "lone Scout", eh?
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <698to3$93d$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
writes...
>
>to only kicking out vocal atheists.
>
Oh, OK. But not consistently - across all council boundaries, correct?
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <34B3F427...@scout.net>, "Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)"
<gre...@scout.net> writes...
>Well I tend to beleive that Scouting, although sponsored in many cases
>by churches (though not all cases, we are sponsored by a community
>association, our previous sponsor was however a church) should not need
>to deal to deeply with religion,...
...and it doesn't, not even in the USA. But the thorny issue of
officially-sanctioned exclusion of atheists stick in the craw and
prevents the BSA from acheiving true pluralism.
- neil
BILL NELSON
Wrong issue Neil. The issue is that some people want us to
change the Oath and requirements pertaining to the Oath and
change how we interpret good character.
-bill
--
---
"A NATION owes its success, not so much to its strength
in armaments, as to the amount of character in its citizens."
- Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Scout Movement
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) says:
>su...@mindspring.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>
>>>How would you characterize someone who doesn't believe in god,
>>>and does not swear oaths or make promises in the name of god?
>
>>White trash???
>
>More true scouting spirit from Hugh.
>Next, he calls Jews Kikes.
>
Best to simply ignore Hugh.
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <696r0c$7...@portal.gmu.edu>, mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu
>(Mathew E Goldstein) writes...
>>... Would it be too
>>difficult for BSA to also make membership policy distinctions between
>>Scout units whose charter partner is a religious or other private
>>organization and Scout units whose charter partner is a public institution
>>or place of public accomodation?
>
> I for one would be overjoyed to see this become the official policy
> of the BSA. It would recognize a kind of "home rule" or local control,
> consistent with the fact that different factions of the community have
> different standards and values pertaining to the '3Gs'.
>
Then the character building that went on would be distinctly different
between units. No, I could not go along with it.
BILL NELSON
REPOSTING, THERE WAS A TYPO IN MY PREVIOUS REPLY
In a previous article, me@meeself.i () says:
>Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
>
>> BSA makes some membership policy distinctions between various programs,
>> allowing avowed atheists and homosexuals to participate in the Learning
>> for Life program, allowing females to be Explorer Scouts. Would it be too
>> difficult for BSA to also make membership policy distinctions between
>> Scout units whose charter partner is a religious or other private
>> organization and Scout units whose charter partner is a public institution
>> or place of public accomodation?
>
>
>That's not a bad idea in principle, but to play the Devil's Advocate
>(I'm kidding! I'm kidding! Figure of speech! Yeesh.) some would say
>that would 'water down' the franchise and reduce its esteem in the eyes
>of the community.
>
I would postulate that Learning for Life, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts
and Explorers are different programs, setting out to accomplish
different goals.
Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are meant to build character, foster
citizenship and develop fitness in boys. I know the program could
be changed to address these characteristics in boys and girls,
but for now it is in boys.
Explorers is to accomplish the same aims in male and female
youth as well as to give them some in-depth information about
a possible vocation.
Shown 93%, press <SPACE> for more, 'q' to quit, or 'h' for help
Changing the Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and Explorer Oath (aka Promise,
or Code) so that there is no mention of God, or making the Oath
or Code) so that there is no mention of God, or making the Oath
Also allowing a leader to openly advocate a way of life contrary
to BSA character building guidelines would affect all programs.
These last two G's would drastically change the type of
'character building' that goes on. I think it is for that reason,
the BSA is so resilient in changing the Oath and requirements
surrounding the Oath.
For more information see the rec.scouting.issues FAQ, especially
about the BSA and God and the WOSM and God. Also look at:
"Maintaining BSA Standards
The Scout Oath and Law are not up for negotiation.
Our values are not for sale."
Text of this article from Scouting magazine, September 1992.
can be found at:
http://www.main.org/boyscout/bsastand.htm
take care,
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <690987$cn9$3...@uwm.edu>, jne...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu (James K Nelsen)
>writes...
>>... many scout units in the United States are sponsored
>>by churches or other religious organizations that might not take to kindly
>>to having atheists among their children.
>
> Indeed so, Jim -- except possibly for 'closet' atheists, who hide their
> atheism by, for example, suppressing their speech.
>
> Therein lies the krux of the issue: Should ALL atheists be required to
> at least tacitly accept the BSA Oath (as presently writen) or should
> the BSA officially make an accommodation similar to the GSUSA (for example)?
My understanding is that the GSUSA accomodation is not to thow out
God from the Oath. It is not to accomodate atheists, but those
who have a different spirituality, like the Native Americans.
Anyway, I vote we don't throw out the BSA Oath, or water it down,
it has stood the test of time, and if some can't live by it, fine,
let them find a different club to belong to. No one if forcing them
to join our club.
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <34B3F427...@scout.net>, "Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)"
><gre...@scout.net> writes...
>>Well I tend to beleive that Scouting, although sponsored in many cases
>>by churches (though not all cases, we are sponsored by a community
>>association, our previous sponsor was however a church) should not need
>>to deal to deeply with religion,...
>
> ...and it doesn't, not even in the USA. But the thorny issue of
> officially-sanctioned exclusion of atheists stick in the craw and
> prevents the BSA from acheiving true pluralism.
A there is no officialy-sanctioned exclusion of atheists. We have
an Oath and ask that members promise to try to live by it. If a person
can't then they can't be a member.
There is no goal in the BSA for achieving true pluralism. I hope there
never is. True pluralism would be anyone and everyone could be taking
my kids camping in the woods. Watch out for what you wish for, some
day you wake up to find you have your wish and it is nothing like
what you expect.
YiS,
Brian Westley
nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON) writes:
...
>Anyway, I vote we don't throw out the BSA Oath, or water it down,
>it has stood the test of time, and if some can't live by it, fine,
>let them find a different club to belong to. No one if forcing them
>to join our club.
Fine:
Stop all government charters of Scouts and Explorers
(including public schools that charter scouts, police, fire,
and military Explorers)
Stop United Way funding because you don't qualify
Stop the Learning for Life program in public schools
But you don't do this.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Mathew E Goldstein
me@meeself.i wrote:
: Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
: >
: > restrictions on membership clearly employs a double standard. This is
: > because the argument remains the same when the words 'atheist' and 'dead'
: > are replaced with 'theist' and 'alive'. It would not be a double
: > standard if you applied the same argument to theists as you apply to
: > atheists and concluded that all atheists and theists who declare their
: > atheism or theism with absolute surety are justifiably excluded from BSA.
: >
: Demonstrably incorrect. Watch me:
: "The theist who declares with surety that god is alive shows himself to
: be a zealot. The ABSA (Atheist Boy Scouts of America" have as a
: requirement that none of their members have a specific, defined belief
: in God as a Supreme Being. Therefore, any one refusing to swear the
: ABSA oath "On my honor, I have no clue as to what God is, or i think
: he's dead" will be declined membership."
: Sounds reasonable to me. It also sounds like an organization I want no
: part of, but that's neither here nor there.
And of course the Federal Aviation Administration has charter partnership
agreements with the ABSA that establish career Explorer Posts within which
high school age students get experience and instruction not available
elsewhere from current FAA employees using FAA equipment which is
directly applicable to obtaining future career opportunities with the FAA.
Does it still sound reasonable to you?
: Ah, but you say this proves that the standard is "double." If you
: substitute "elephant" for "atheist," you will find that the argument
: remains the same--elephents remain ineligible for membership. It's a
: single, coherent standard.
It is the *argument* that you make that employs a double standard. The
argument employs a double standard in defense of a single rule. That
there is only one rule does not turn the argument that defends that
rule into a single standard *argument*. Of course, if elephants were
employees of the FAA also then it would be a double standard argument for
elephants too.
Here your compare atheists with elephants. Before this you analogized
atheists with people who wipe their noses on the U.S. flag, etc. Do we
see a pattern here? Could we both agree to keep these kind of ad hominem
attacks by derogatory analogy outside of the debate? Or does your
argument get too weak without derogatry remarks?
: > All of this is immaterial, however, since BSA makes no such distinction
: > between different catagories of atheists/agnostics according to some
: > measure of zealotry as evidenced by the twins in California who make no
: > claims to certainty.
: Incorrect. In your instance, the distinction was apparant from the
: refusal to even utter the notional word 'god,' despite the fact that
: said word can be interpreted with such latitude that only a point-prover
: or true "anti-godder" would refuse.
No one has any trouble uttering the word 'god'. Once someone utters this
word in the context of the BSA oath, are they then also free to identify
themselves as atheists without being thrown out of BSA as liars? By
saying the oath as it is, some people are publically committing themselves
to hiding their atheism from the world. It is a censorship or penalty
choice. BSA is penalizing expression of atheistic identity.
This appears to be deliberate, the people who are running BSA national
headquarters appear to want to disparage and censor atheistic viewpoints
from American society and they are using their control of BSA for that
end. They are trying to take advantage of the fact that BSA is partially
a camping oriented organization that is dependent on church support as a
shield which they can wield to defend their claim to need to set
membership restrictions based on religion and sexual orientation while
simultaneously employing the same standards on other parts of the
organization, with or without the agreement of the units effected,
including units which are public institutions instead of a churches and
units where the activity is career training instead of camping.
: > Nor is even attempting any such distinction fair
: > if the same distinction is not applied to theists. Nor is it practical
: > to attempt such a standard as an admission criteria. Nor should claims of
: > certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
: > people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
: > claim).
: Your first sentence is silly; there is a clear distinction between the
: set of people who beleieve in "God" and those who do 'not.'
One more time. If having a dark eye color is the basis for defending
exclusion for membership, but only people with dark green eyes and not
people with dark blue or brown eyes are excluded, then the basis for
exclusion in practice employs a double standard and is not fair. Someone
who then argued that because membership is geared for people with blue and
brown eyes there is only one standard would be demonstrating a blind spot
in his logic which presumable indicates a failure on his/her part to
consider green eyes to be worthy of equal consideration, particularly if
light greened eyed people were also being excluded simply becuase they
refused to cover their eyes with blue or brown plastic irises and this
'failure' on the part of the light green eyed people to cater to the blue
and brown eyed majority was then presented as evidenced that they are
darked eyed and therefore justly excluded on the basis of excluding people
who are dark eyed. What BSA appears to keeping out is public expression
of atheism, despite the occassional exception of an atheist who
videntifies himself as such at the cost of making his membership
precarious. Trying to pass off this penalizing of public expression of
atheism as keeping out zealotry is disengenious.
: Your second
: sentence is self-serving in that you WISH it were not as practical as it
: is, and are doing your best to make it impractical.
According to your definition of zealotry a zealous atheist, who is
absolutely sure that there is no god and could not be a god, could lie and
become a Scout, but a more modest and more honest atheist who considered
belief in god reasonable and did not think god's existence could be
disproved would be expelled from Scouting because he personally believed
god did not exist and felt he should not be penalized for expressing
himself consistent with his beliefs.
Your third sentence
: reiterates our prime point of divergence, namely, that it is for the BSA
: to decide the relevance of theism to Scouting.
My third sentence said nothing about who gets to decide the relevance of
theism to Scouting. My third sentence was about the irrelevance of claims
of certainty as a BSA membership qualification criteria. Certainty claims
are made by atheists, theists, and even by agnostics (for example, an
agnostic may claim that he is certain that he will not go to hell for not
being a theist). No one has to claim to have 'proof' of god's existence
or non-existence to call themselves a theist or atheist any more so than
anyone has to claim to have proof that a higher minimum wage will hurt or
help the economy to call themselves a Republican or a Democratic. You
seem to be basing your argument on the false premise that all atheists by
definition insist that they have proof or otherwise have knowledge that
god cannot exist or does not exist. Atheists are people who do not
believe that god exists, and this includes people such as myself who
consider this belief to be an opinion with no proof or claim to any
knowledge of any fact in this regard. For atheists such as myself this is
strictly a personal opinion, an opinion which we should not be penalized
for expressing or sharing as if by virtue of this opinion alone we
suddenly compromise our status in the community because of allegations
that we awful people of bad influence would compromise the 'character
building' attributes of national patriotic associations if we were allowed
to join.
Brian Westley
That's actually part of the problem. When BSA rules are only
sporadically enforced, you get e.g. publically funded Police Explorer
posts because the police department doesn't even realize that the
BSA rejects kids based on their religious tests. If the BSA
actually enforced their religious requirements, they'd lose all
their police & fire Explorer posts tomorrow, and they know that.
So they'd rather lie to the public.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON) writes:
>In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>>In article <34B3F427...@scout.net>, "Roger Heward (valQIS) (green1)"
>><gre...@scout.net> writes...
>>>Well I tend to beleive that Scouting, although sponsored in many cases
>>>by churches (though not all cases, we are sponsored by a community
>>>association, our previous sponsor was however a church) should not need
>>>to deal to deeply with religion,...
>>
>> ...and it doesn't, not even in the USA. But the thorny issue of
>> officially-sanctioned exclusion of atheists stick in the craw and
>> prevents the BSA from acheiving true pluralism.
>Wrong issue Neil. The issue is that some people want us to
>change the Oath and requirements pertaining to the Oath and
>change how we interpret good character.
What exactly did Seabourn do to get kicked out?
He posted here himself, and said he didn't refuse to
say the oath.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
Oh, this lie again. Atheists who say the oath still get kicked out.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
m...@meeself.i
Matt,
You're out of ammo, and it shows.
Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
>
> me@meeself.i wrote:
> : Mathew E Goldstein wrote:
> : >
> : > The argument that you are positing on behalf of singling out atheists for
> : > restrictions on membership clearly employs a double standard. This is
> : > because the argument remains the same when the words 'atheist' and 'dead'
> : > are replaced with 'theist' and 'alive'.
>
> : Demonstrably incorrect. Watch me:
>
> : "The theist who declares with surety that god is alive shows himself to
> : be a zealot. The ABSA (Atheist Boy Scouts of America" have as a
> : requirement that none of their members have a specific, defined belief
> : in God as a Supreme Being. Therefore, any one refusing to swear the
> : ABSA oath "On my honor, I have no clue as to what God is, or i think
> : he's dead" will be declined membership."
>
> And of course the Federal Aviation Administration has charter partnership
> agreements with the ABSA that establish career Explorer Posts within which
> high school age students get experience and instruction not available
> elsewhere from current FAA employees using FAA equipment which is
> directly applicable to obtaining future career opportunities with the FAA.
> Does it still sound reasonable to you?
>
Let's try to stay on point, eh? I have already, as a courtesy, agreed
to consider your charge that the BSA accepts public funding. I have
further agreed that if in fact that's what they're doing, they ought to
consider knocking it off so that they will be free to set their own
membership standards without coming under attack from whatever people
are ultimately deemed unacceptable. *THAT* is what your pickled herring
FAA example addresses (public funding), not your charge of double
standards and my effortless rebuke of that charge. There is ONE
standard for godlessness in the BSA: "we don't want you." This is a
SINGLE, coherent standard. For your benefit, I shall provide you with a
quick example of a DOUBLE standard: "No atheists allowed, except those
with red hair." See the difference? It's a common tactic to claim
"double standards" whenever the single standard excludes you; this
tactic may stymie others but not me.
> : Ah, but you say this proves that the standard is "double." If you
> : substitute "elephant" for "atheist," you will find that the argument
> : remains the same--elephents remain ineligible for membership. It's a
> : single, coherent standard.
>
> It is the *argument* that you make that employs a double standard. The
> argument employs a double standard in defense of a single rule. That
> there is only one rule does not turn the argument that defends that
> rule into a single standard *argument*. Of course, if elephants were
> employees of the FAA also then it would be a double standard argument for
> elephants too.
>
You have a wacky definition of double standard. As an avid reader of
fantasy, I'd love for you to spell it out, sans analogy. Y'see, I
detect one rule ("no Atheists") and one standard of enforcement ("no
Atheists").
> Here your compare atheists with elephants. Before this you analogized
> atheists with people who wipe their noses on the U.S. flag, etc. Do we
> see a pattern here? Could we both agree to keep these kind of ad hominem
> attacks by derogatory analogy outside of the debate? Or does your
> argument get too weak without derogatry remarks?
>
Paranoia ill-becomes you. What, are you anti-elephant now? The analogy
to people who wipe their noses with the flag is (for you, painfully) apt
because both that behavior and Atheism are incompatible with BSA
standards. Sorry if that stings. But I think you owe an apology to all
elephant-Americans who take offense at your characterizing their
heritage as being "derogatory."
> : > All of this is immaterial, however, since BSA makes no such distinction
> : > between different catagories of atheists/agnostics according to some
> : > measure of zealotry as evidenced by the twins in California who make no
> : > claims to certainty.
>
> : Incorrect. In your instance, the distinction was apparant from the
> : refusal to even utter the notional word 'god,' despite the fact that
> : said word can be interpreted with such latitude that only a point-prover
> : or true "anti-godder" would refuse.
>
> No one has any trouble uttering the word 'god'. Once someone utters this
> word in the context of the BSA oath, are they then also free to identify
> themselves as atheists without being thrown out of BSA as liars? By
> saying the oath as it is, some people are publically committing themselves
> to hiding their atheism from the world. It is a censorship or penalty
> choice. BSA is penalizing expression of atheistic identity.
>
Stick a fork in yourself, you're done. Liars should be thrown out of
the BSA. Atheists who swear oaths to a god they do not believe in are
liars, and should be thrown out of the BSA. Atheists who can reconcile
a notional meta-being with the word 'god,' and utter an oath to said god
without feeling hypocritical are not liars and should not be thrown out
of the BSA. Your use of the words "censorship" and "penalizing
expression" are inappropriate but consistent with the last-ditch
attempts of the scoundrel.
Setting aside for a moment the possible improprietous acceptance of
funds--which you have not proved to my, or the courts',
satisfaction--your arguments of censorship, repression, persecution,
bigotry etc. are bogus and boil down essentially to this: " I want to be
a Boy Scout, but I don't want to follow the rules. I want the
priveleges and the honors, but not the responsibilities and the
obligations. I want the entire smorgasbord of benefits but demand the
right to cherry-pick only the qualifications which suit my whims."
> This appears to be deliberate, the people who are running BSA national
> headquarters appear to want to disparage and censor atheistic viewpoints
> from American society and they are using their control of BSA for that
> end.
Just out of curiosity: what do YOU think happened at Roswell, New
Mexico?
> They are trying to take advantage of the fact that BSA is partially
> a camping oriented organization that is dependent on church support as a
> shield which they can wield to defend their claim to need to set
> membership restrictions based on religion and sexual orientation while
> simultaneously employing the same standards on other parts of the
> organization, with or without the agreement of the units effected,
> including units which are public institutions instead of a churches and
> units where the activity is career training instead of camping.
>
They're trying to advance an agenda that a tiny fraction of the
population, including you, does not agree with. The 'public funding'
thing, even if true, is just a smokescreen for your wounded pride. You
can't stand the fact that one of the most --the most-- respected youth
organizations in the world thinks your philosophy is bunk. You're a
sore loser.
> : > Nor is even attempting any such distinction fair
> : > if the same distinction is not applied to theists. Nor is it practical
> : > to attempt such a standard as an admission criteria. Nor should claims of
> : > certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
> : > people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
> : > claim).
>
> : Your first sentence is silly; there is a clear distinction between the
> : set of people who beleieve in "God" and those who do 'not.'
>
> One more time. If having a dark eye color is the basis for defending
> exclusion for membership, but only people with dark green eyes and not
> people with dark blue or brown eyes are excluded, then the basis for
> exclusion in practice employs a double standard and is not fair.
One more time: this is not apropos. There is one class of person
excluded from BSA membership: those who do not believe in "a" god.
People who believe in a dark green god are accepted. People who believe
in a dark blue god are accepted. People who believe in a light pink god
are accepted.
People like you are not accepted. Unless they lie.
> Someone
> who then argued that because membership is geared for people with blue and
> brown eyes there is only one standard would be demonstrating a blind spot
> in his logic which presumable indicates a failure on his/her part to
> consider green eyes to be worthy of equal consideration, particularly if
> light greened eyed people were also being excluded simply becuase they
> refused to cover their eyes with blue or brown plastic irises and this
> 'failure' on the part of the light green eyed people to cater to the blue
> and brown eyed majority was then presented as evidenced that they are
> darked eyed and therefore justly excluded on the basis of excluding people
> who are dark eyed. What BSA appears to keeping out is public expression
> of atheism, despite the occassional exception of an atheist who
> videntifies himself as such at the cost of making his membership
> precarious. Trying to pass off this penalizing of public expression of
> atheism as keeping out zealotry is disengenious.
>
Sound and fury signifying nothing.
> : Your second
> : sentence is self-serving in that you WISH it were not as practical as it
> : is, and are doing your best to make it impractical.
>
> According to your definition of zealotry a zealous atheist, who is
> absolutely sure that there is no god and could not be a god, could lie and
> become a Scout, but a more modest and more honest atheist who considered
> belief in god reasonable and did not think god's existence could be
> disproved would be expelled from Scouting because he personally believed
> god did not exist and felt he should not be penalized for expressing
> himself consistent with his beliefs.
>
Hornorable organizations will always have a certain vulnerability to
liars; you may defend liars at your own discretion, I will not. A more
honest, reasonable and modest scout who did not believe in god would go
someplace where his views were welcome. Assuming, of course, he had a
sense of honor as well. Barring this, he should be kicked out of the
scouts.
> Your third sentence
> : reiterates our prime point of divergence, namely, that it is for the BSA
> : to decide the relevance of theism to Scouting.
>
> My third sentence said nothing about who gets to decide the relevance of
> theism to Scouting.
You don't even understand what you're writing. Allow me to 'splain:
>Nor should claims of
> : > certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
> : > people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
> : > claim).
IOW, just because a person is certain there is no god, the scouts have
no right to judge him unfit for membership, simply because they permit
admit people who are certain that there is a god.
Go on, tell me how I've misinterpreted your words.
My third sentence was about the irrelevance of claims
> of certainty as a BSA membership qualification criteria. Certainty claims
> are made by atheists, theists, and even by agnostics (for example, an
> agnostic may claim that he is certain that he will not go to hell for not
> being a theist). No one has to claim to have 'proof' of god's existence
> or non-existence to call themselves a theist or atheist any more so than
> anyone has to claim to have proof that a higher minimum wage will hurt or
> help the economy to call themselves a Republican or a Democratic. You
> seem to be basing your argument on the false premise that all atheists by
> definition insist that they have proof or otherwise have knowledge that
> god cannot exist or does not exist.
"Certainty" does not exist in a vaccuum, grasshopper. The operative
thing is what you're 'certain' OF.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that only those who insist--"are
certain"-- that they do not believe in god get kicked out. Admittedly,
were I attemtping to argue your position, I would adopt this tactic as
well.
> Atheists are people who do not
> believe that god exists, and this includes people such as myself who
> consider this belief to be an opinion with no proof or claim to any
> knowledge of any fact in this regard.
This is why you are ineligible for honorable membership in the BSA.
Opinions are beliefs. That your belief (by your own admission) is
half-baked is no comfort.
By the way, you earlier chastised me for lumping "all atheists" into a
single category. You now commit this same error. Remember, some
"atheists" just don't put a name to the god they figure exists.
> For atheists such as myself this is
> strictly a personal opinion, an opinion which we should not be penalized
> for expressing or sharing as if by virtue of this opinion alone we
> suddenly compromise our status in the community because of allegations
> that we awful people of bad influence would compromise the 'character
> building' attributes of national patriotic associations if we were allowed
> to join.
Yeah, I've heard that one before. "They won't change their rules for
me, so I'm being penalized." If the BSA is such a rotten organization,
why on earth do you want to be a member? I know the answer and so do
the rest of us, even if you don't.
Well, this has degenerated nicely. But you really offended me when you
made that crack about elephant-Americans. For shame.
regards,
hammer
Neil Savage
In article <69dr77$7...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
writes...
>
>
>Then the character building that went on would be distinctly different
>between units. No, I could not go along with it.
>
How so, Bill? Do you narrowly define 'character building' to imply
that gays, atheists, and girls are not capable of exhibiting
'character' appropriate to your taste?
Is character-building the same as instilling certain 'values'?
Is learning tolerance not considered part of character building?
Is a boy's character-building compromised because he has a gay or atheist
troop leader? Because his little sister is also a Cub Scout?
Will a WASP boy understand why a Jewish gay boy has character? An African
American girl has character? But only if that boy or girl is not in his
Scout unit?
- neil
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <69dr77$7...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
>writes...
>>
>>
>>Then the character building that went on would be distinctly different
>>between units. No, I could not go along with it.
>>
>
> How so, Bill? Do you narrowly define 'character building' to imply
> that gays, atheists, and girls are not capable of exhibiting
> 'character' appropriate to your taste?
>
My taste has little to do with it. The BSA defines the gay
life style as inappropriate character. The BSA states that
for its members to achieve the best kind of citizenship they
need to have a duty to God. If some of the units adhere to these
and others do not, the type of character building would be distinctly
different between units.
> Is character-building the same as instilling certain 'values'?
>
I would say yes
> Is learning tolerance not considered part of character building?
>
Sure it is, and so is self control and the knowledge that you are
not the end all and be all of the universe, and that there are
certain behaviors that are unacceptable by a higher power than
yourself. (e.g., dictatorship, murder, anarchy...)
> Is a boy's character-building compromised because he has a gay or atheist
> troop leader? Because his little sister is also a Cub Scout?
>
Yes, I think so, and so does the BSA. You are free to disagree and
not join the organization.
> Will a WASP boy understand why a Jewish gay boy has character? An African
> American girl has character? But only if that boy or girl is not in his
> Scout unit?
Character is not all or nothing. There are grades of good and bad
character, as you know. You can not be gay and have very little
character, you can be gay and have a lot of character, but
your moral values would not be what the BSA would want to teach
to its members. That, again, is the BSA's right in this free
society we call the USA.
take care,
Neil Savage
In article <69dt91$9...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
writes...
>
>God from the Oath. It is not to accomodate atheists, but those
>who have a different spirituality, like the Native Americans.
>
That's my understanding also. Accommodation of atheists was secondary.
Nevertheless, such an accommodation was accomplished by the policy move.
>Anyway, I vote we don't throw out the BSA Oath, or water it down,
>it has stood the test of time, and if some can't live by it, fine,
>let them find a different club to belong to. No one if forcing them
>to join our club.
>
The Oath need not change. Some such accommodation could be made (as an
aside), such as pointing out privately to any parent, who raises the issue
on their own initiative, that atheists are permitted to 'lip sync' through
the "God" part.
Keeping atheists out of the BSA (whether or not there is another outing
club that they could join) is separatist. Is wasn't tolerated in
South Africa regarding the blacks (let them form their own townships - and
rot in Hell for all we care), why would allowing BSA to continue 'apartheit'
for gays and atheists be better 'character building' and good citizenship
that apartheit for South Africans?
It is should be a 'human right' that any guiltless young person have
the opportunity to join Scouting - without passing a test involving
gender, sexual orientation, or personal philosphy. We should be blind
to such personal 3G things in our children. BSA has no business prying
into such 'sensitive' things. It's an invasion of privacy issue.
Does a Scout so question each person he does a good deed for? No?
Then why shouldn't BSA committ to the ultimate "Good deed" and let
any child join?
Some rules are made to be broken - the 3Gs are ripe candidates!
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <69emth$1ld$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
writes...
>Oh, this lie again. Atheists who say the oath still get kicked out.
>
A lie? Or is it simply a statement that treats media-publicized cases
as the exceptions? I know of at least one atheist who says the oath
and has not been kicked out - me. Do you regard me as the exception?
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <34BA58...@usaor.net>, me@meeself.i writes...
> ...some would say
>that would 'water down' the franchise and reduce its esteem in the eyes
>of the community.
>
I deem it unlikely that accepting gay Scout leaders would reduce the
esteem of the BSA in the eyes of some San Francisco Bay neighborhoods.
In my locality, the only 3G policy change that would matter one wit
would be to admit girls into the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs.
A lot of local folks (youngters and adults) would be overjoyed at that
prospect!
- neil
Joseph Alessi
>Stick a fork in yourself, you're done. Liars should be thrown out of
>the BSA.
How do you define a "liar"? How many Eagle scouts are there that haven't
slipped at least once in their years of membership? Are you only talking
about athesitic liars?
Take the second part of the scout oath - "to help other people at all
times". Does each and every scout and scouter that you know actually "help
other people at all times"? Note that "some of the time" won't do - the
oath says "all times". Are these scouts "liars"? Should they be banned
from the movement?
Or don't you hold all parts of the scout oath and law to the same standard?
YIS
Joseph alessi
Lafayette District Advancement Chair
ASM Troop 313, Cradle of Liberty Council
Brian Westley
sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) writes:
>In article <69emth$1ld$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>writes...
>>Oh, this lie again. Atheists who say the oath still get kicked out.
> A lie?
Yes; Bill keeps claiming that atheists aren't kicked out simply
for being atheists. Why was Seabourn kicked out? He posted on
this newsgroup that he said the oath; as far as I could tell,
he was kicked out for saying god meant nothing to him.
> Or is it simply a statement that treats media-publicized cases
> as the exceptions?
What does that have to do with whether the BSA kicks out
people for being atheists?
> I know of at least one atheist who says the oath
> and has not been kicked out - me. Do you regard me as the exception?
I responded to Bill's statement (which was a global
statment) by claiming it was false and giving an example.
This does not mean my statement is a global statement.
To put it more simply, Bill's claim was phrased as if
the BSA *never* kicks out *anyone* for their atheism. My claim
that this is false. This does *not* mean I claim that
the BSA *always* kicks out *everyone* for their atheism,
just that they do it a nonzero number of times.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <69dt91$9...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
>writes...
>>
>>My understanding is that the GSUSA accomodation is not to thow out
>>God from the Oath. It is not to accomodate atheists, but those
>>who have a different spirituality, like the Native Americans.
>>
>
> That's my understanding also. Accommodation of atheists was secondary.
> Nevertheless, such an accommodation was accomplished by the policy move.
>
Appearently only in some people's minds. Has National stated as much?
The statement I post in the FAQ would lead me to think otherwise.
>>Anyway, I vote we don't throw out the BSA Oath, or water it down,
>>it has stood the test of time, and if some can't live by it, fine,
>>let them find a different club to belong to. No one if forcing them
>>to join our club.
>>
>
> The Oath need not change. Some such accommodation could be made (as an
> aside), such as pointing out privately to any parent, who raises the issue
> on their own initiative, that atheists are permitted to 'lip sync' through
> the "God" part.
>
Naw, it is watering down a controversial issue. I think the BSA is doing
just fine the way it is. We are standing firm in our beliefs, which
I think is really what the country expects of us.
Neil Savage
In article <69g6o9$c...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
writes...
>
>life style as inappropriate character. The BSA states that
>for its members to achieve the best kind of citizenship they
>need to have a duty to God. If some of the units adhere to these
>and others do not, the type of character building would be distinctly
>different between units.
>
Thanks for answering my question so promptly Bill. You and I will
just have to disagree on this one. I live in an area where atheists
and gays are tacitly accepted as Scout leaders. So the impact of any
change in the BSA's official stance on these two Gs is (IMO) irrelevant.
I submit that, in SOME parts of the USA, the only difference in the
type of character-building that is going would be positive:
to remove a potential source of hypocracy. I don't count
hypocrites as being persons of exemplary character for Scouts to
emulate. In the meantime, the locals have 'dumbed down' the
national debate - so as to not compromise the success of the mission of
'character building' (as I see it anyway).
- neil
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
>In article <34BA58...@usaor.net>, me@meeself.i writes...
>> ...some would say
>>that would 'water down' the franchise and reduce its esteem in the eyes
>>of the community.
>>
>
> I deem it unlikely that accepting gay Scout leaders would reduce the
> esteem of the BSA in the eyes of some San Francisco Bay neighborhoods.
>
Neil, the gay community in San Francisco is not in the majority, and
you cannot lump all the Bay Area cities into the same social/political
frame of mind as San Francisco. San Francisco is a very small city, as far
as US cities are concerned and is not exactly your
typical American city as far as gays are concerned.
> In my locality, the only 3G policy change that would matter one wit
> would be to admit girls into the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs.
> A lot of local folks (youngters and adults) would be overjoyed at that
> prospect!
I don't think you can lump the girl issue and the gay issue together like
this. There would be a different uproar, probably among a lot of differnt
people, if you make Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts coed, but I honestly
think it will not be as much a change as it would be if you
changed the character and values aspects of the program.
So, now that you have said all that, when is the GSUSA going to
be more inclusive an let boys join? ;-)
-bill
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) says:
>sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) writes:
>>In article <69emth$1ld$1...@darla.visi.com>, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>>writes...
>>>Oh, this lie again. Atheists who say the oath still get kicked out.
>
>> A lie?
>
>Yes; Bill keeps claiming that atheists aren't kicked out simply
>for being atheists. Why was Seabourn kicked out? He posted on
>this newsgroup that he said the oath; as far as I could tell,
>he was kicked out for saying god meant nothing to him.
>
As far as I could tell the renewal of his commission as an adult
leader was denied because he wrote to his Council basically
refuting what was in the DRP. He wrote in response to the letter
of reaffirmation issued from National in 1991 and printed in a
Council newsletter. (both the DRP and the letter of
reaffirmation are in the rec.scouting.issues FAQ).
Subscribing to the DRP is required for adult leaders.
The DRP does not specifically define God,
but it does describe God as being much more than nothing.
Seabourn stated that he replaced God with "nothing" in his
mind when he said the Oath. So the Council was on pretty
firm grounds on denying the renewal based upon not subscribing
to the DRP. What the Boy Scout Handbook and Adult Leader
books have to say about the Scout Oath would also give
the Council pretty good grounds in saying that God cannot be defined as
nothing as far as the BSA is concerned. (I would also postulate
that the GSUSA definition also says that, but I am digressing)
>> I know of at least one atheist who says the oath
>> and has not been kicked out - me. Do you regard me as the exception?
>
>I responded to Bill's statement (which was a global
>statement) by claiming it was false and giving an example.
>This does not mean my statement is a global statement.
>
Global statements are always risky. See my explanation above.
>To put it more simply, Bill's claim was phrased as if
>the BSA *never* kicks out *anyone* for their atheism. My claim
>that this is false. This does *not* mean I claim that
>the BSA *always* kicks out *everyone* for their atheism,
>just that they do it a nonzero number of times.
I have no way of knowing if the BSA ever kicked out someone
simply because they said they were an atheist. Seabourn
said much more than simply that he was an atheist.
Branden Morris
Mathew E Goldstein (mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: This appears to be deliberate, the people who are running BSA national
: headquarters appear to want to disparage and censor atheistic viewpoints
: from American society and they are using their control of BSA for that
: end.
I don't think that one can seriously claim that the BSA has such a
sinister agenda. While we may feel that the program is appropriate for
theists, members of BSA should uphold American laws and ideals, which
include free speech.
: They are trying to take advantage of the fact that BSA is partially
: a camping oriented organization that is dependent on church support as a
: shield which they can wield to defend their claim to need to set
: membership restrictions based on religion and sexual orientation while
: simultaneously employing the same standards on other parts of the
: organization, with or without the agreement of the units effected,
: including units which are public institutions instead of a churches and
: units where the activity is career training instead of camping.
But is a Boy Scout troop a camping club, or is Exploring simply for
career training? No.
Any program of the BSA has three aims for American youth -- to develop
character, citizenship, and fitness. Each program uses different methods
to achieve those aims. In traditional Boy Scouting, the methods include
peer leadership under adult guidance in the planning and execution of an
outdoors-based program. In Exploring, the methods include peer
leadership under adult guidance in the planning and execution of a
career/hobby-related program. In both cases, the aims are to develop
character, citizenship, and fitness. To reduce the point of either
program to simply a fun activity denies the aims of Scouting.
We should make it clear that the arguement isn't about wether or not
atheism is compatible with the program of Scouting; it is about wether
or not atheism is incompatible with the aims of Scouting.
--
Branden C. Morris
bmo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu or mor...@net1plus.com
http://www.net1plus.com/users/morris/branden.html
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, sav...@tle.enet.dec.com (Neil Savage) says:
I suggest you reexamine the program as it is presented to the Boys.
If you don't subscribe to the DRP or the Oath, but are quiet about
it then you normally stay. But the program stays the same, the
Scouts still pledge their duty to God each week, and we still
talk about God in the program, where appropriate.
Gays seem to be alowed in as leaders as long as they don't
advocate the life style. Again, the program continues to
teach the BSA definition of morally straight.
The locals have not 'dumbed down' Scouting values and
character building, just the debate.
YiS,
Brian Westley
So why do you insist that atheists *aren't* kicked out
for being atheists? It sound disingenuous to me, like
claiming that a group doesn't keep out non-Christians,
they just require that you swear you *are* a Christian.
>>> I know of at least one atheist who says the oath
>>> and has not been kicked out - me. Do you regard me as the exception?
>>
>>I responded to Bill's statement (which was a global
>>statement) by claiming it was false and giving an example.
>>This does not mean my statement is a global statement.
>>
>Global statements are always risky. See my explanation above.
Yes, more dodging, just like it's somehow always
the police department's fault for having Explorer posts
and not the BSA's, even though the BSA never makes
it clear to the PD that they will reject kids based on
religion (since all the PD's would have to drop Explorers
as soon as they knew this). So, the BSA lies by omission.
>>To put it more simply, Bill's claim was phrased as if
>>the BSA *never* kicks out *anyone* for their atheism. My claim
>>that this is false. This does *not* mean I claim that
>>the BSA *always* kicks out *everyone* for their atheism,
>>just that they do it a nonzero number of times.
>I have no way of knowing if the BSA ever kicked out someone
>simply because they said they were an atheist.
So you have no fucking business saying the BSA
never kicks out atheists for being atheists, do you?
Yet every couple of months you say this as some
sort of mealy-mouthed soft-pedalling of the BSA's
religious bigotry, as if you don't even have the
guts to to defend kicking out atheists. Instead,
you keep twisting it as if mindlessly parroting
the oath is just fine with you, and you don't
even have the courage of your convictions.
If you fucking don't want atheists, say so.
Don't hide behind "oh, it's the rules, the BSA
doesn't kick out atheists, they kick out people
who don't subscribe to the DRP/say the oath/whatever".
At least Hugh's hatred is out in the open;
a slimy bastard like you couches religious
prejudice in polite language, and lies by
claiming that atheists aren't turned away.
The same lying attitude is found in the BSA.
They kick out atheists, yet accept Explorer
charters from police, fire, and military units.
They design Learning for Life *specifically*
with *public schools* in mind, yet STILL have
the un-fucking-believable gall to require that
public schoolteachers in public schools
subscribe to the DRP.
>Seabourn
>said much more than simply that he was an atheist.
No, he said god meant nothing to him. The BSA
claimed this meant he couldn't follow the DRP.
I notice you've ignored my pointed questions
about the BSA's involvement with e.g.
police departments and public schools.
No doubt you'll merely point to my impolite
language to ignore the issue completely.
You have no guts to actually address the
issues, because you can see how blatantly
unlawful it is for police to turn away kids
for having the "wrong religion" and how
unethical it is for the BSA to persist in
soliciting and accepting charters for
police department Explorers when they
KNOW they will reject kids who cross off
the religious references (even though it's
illegal for the PD to require subscribing
to those religious references).
You really, truly disgust me.
You have no qualms about fucking over atheist
kids as long as your "good" kids get yours.
Fuck you.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu (Mathew E Goldstein) says:
>If the answer to the former is no and the later is yes then all public
>agencies have a very simple way to avoid their obligation not to
>discriminate under the equal protection clause of the constitution. They
>simply contract with a private organization and let the private
>organization do the discriminating by proxy. This is exactly what
>BSA is trying to do. It is doubtful that this is a legal arrangement.
>
Well, the public organization would be trying to do it, not the BSA,
if this were true. However the BSA does not own nor 'run' the program.
The Chartered partner organization owns and operates the program.
The BSA contracts with the chartered partner to provide guidence
and some materials to the Chartered partner organization so they
can better run the program. Unit leaders work for the Chartered
partner and are also members of the BSA. Chartered partners
have their own rules and regulations, but as long as they are
using the BSA program, they agree to also follow the rules
and regulations of the BSA.
The detailed organization can be found at:
http://compass.scouter.org Search for organization
>Another example. The BSA Learning for Life (LFL) program requires school
>administrators and teachers to serve as LFL leaders during regualre
>school hours and it requires all leaders to sign the BSA Declaration of
>Religious Principles. BSA is trying to enforce a political-religious
>test for public school teachers to qualify for a public school teaching
>assignment!
>
Not necessarily. Learning for Life was designed so that private
schools could use it. Do you have any specific knowledge of
exactly what requirements there are for a LFL leader or of the
accusations you are making ? I don't.
All we know so far is what is found at the BSA web page which is not
much.
m...@meeself.i
Neil Savage wrote:
> In article <34BA58...@usaor.net>, me@meeself.i writes...
> > ...some would say
> >that would 'water down' the franchise and reduce its esteem in the eyes
> >of the community.
> >
>
> I deem it unlikely that accepting gay Scout leaders would reduce the
> esteem of the BSA in the eyes of some San Francisco Bay neighborhoods.
>
> would be to admit girls into the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs.
> A lot of local folks (youngters and adults) would be overjoyed at that
> prospect!
>
I don't doubt the correctness of your statement. You certainly will
agree, however, that it WOULD reduce the esteem of the BSA in other,
less San Francisco-like locales. In fact, it would cause an uproar
greater than this whole god-thing because many people would less like to
think of their children as godless than to think of them as 'sexual,'
and especially 'homosexual.' For better or worse, there are a lot of
things that play well in the Bay area that would go over poorly in other
communities. If you were to make unauthorized use of the Coca-Cola
trademark, for example, and do so in a manner which equated Coca-Cola
with homosexual conduct, the fact that Coke sales in SF tripled would
probably not save you in court, which is where Coca-Cola would take you.
Not arguing with you,
hammer
BILL NELSON
>: This appears to be deliberate, the people who are running BSA national
>: headquarters appear to want to disparage and censor atheistic viewpoints
>: from American society and they are using their control of BSA for that
>: end.
>
I had not noticed that Mathew had said this until Branden's reply to him.
Mathew, this is really not the case. The BSA teaches that everyone
has the obligation to speak up in a democratic society. Not only
is it in the Scout's Handbooks and Leader's books it is also
taught in the appropriate Merit Badge books. If what you said were true,
we would see the BSA sponsoring boycotts and letter writing campaigns.
You haven't see them do this so far, and I hasten to add, you will never
see the BSA do it.
Cheer up. You are fighting a war to try to get the BSA to
embrace your values. You will probably loose some battles, and
probably win some others. But the BSA is not out to get you
or your ideas out of the American society. We have a
free society with individual rights, yours as well as mine.
A true BSA Scouter will defend your right to your viewpoint until
we die. We have done so in numerous wars and on the floor of Congress,
and in the White House. We will continue to do so. For you see,
this is part of the purpose of the BSA.
take care,
bill
m...@meeself.i
Joseph,
"A man sees what he wants to see, and he disregards the rest."
Before we get into it, Joseph, I'm going to ask that you do me the
courtesy of 1) not putting words into my mouth and 2) actually noticing
what I write, not simply responding to me with non sequiturs. I've had
this problem with some other would-be debaters, and it has wearied me
somewhat. If you think what I say is crud, I can respect that and it
will not make me cry...but don't criticize me for cruddy statements
unless I actually make them, okay? You have not yet done this, but I
just want to
....er, 'Be Prepared.'
Joseph Alessi wrote:
> >hammer wrote, to Merlyn:
> >Stick a fork in yourself, you're done. Liars should be thrown out of
> >the BSA.
>
> How do you define a "liar"? How many Eagle scouts are there that haven't
> slipped at least once in their years of membership? Are you only talking
> about athesitic liars?
>
I define "liar" as someone who lies. I define lie as an untruth, told
intentionally and with informed consent. I imagine there are few Eagle
Scouts, if any, who have not lied about some thing or another at some
time or another. In this instance, I refer to lies made *to the BSA*
(not told at school, home, etc.), which have come to the attention of
BSA authorities. I am not, as some have fantasized, anti-atheist--in
fact, I myself am some form of atheist (the kind which cannot adequately
give name or form to the thing others comfortably call "God"). Liars
not caught in their lie are still liars, but until a reliable
brain-scanning device is invented, there is little we can do about liars
who go undiscovered; they have the luxury or burden of answering only to
their own conciences. IOW, Scouts who lie about having completed merit
badge requirements ought to be expelled. Prospective Scouts who lie
about *anything* on their application forms ought to be turned away at
the door.
> Take the second part of the scout oath - "to help other people at all
> times". Does each and every scout and scouter that you know actually "help
> other people at all times"? Note that "some of the time" won't do - the
> oath says "all times". Are these scouts "liars"? Should they be banned
> from the movement?
>
> Or don't you hold all parts of the scout oath and law to the same standard?
>
You engage in pedantry. Extrapolating, even a nano-second spent in an
activity which does not demonstrably benefit others--such as
sleeping--would then disqualify one for membership in the BSA. Come to
think of it, this would also violate the 'mentally awake' part, but that
is even more obviously nonsensical than your example. Ever-able and
willing to meet all opponents head-on, my counter pedantic would be
that, in a sense, not harming others is helping them. I only make such
a claim within the rhetorical paradigm you have established. Engaging
in antitheism (that is, public demonstration of one's belief in the
nonexistence of god) in no way aids others in their practice of theism,
a tenet of scouting.
Nice try.
regards,
hammer
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu (Mathew E Goldstein) says:
>
>All of this is immaterial, however, since BSA makes no such distinction
>between different catagories of atheists/agnostics according to some
>measure of zealotry as evidenced by the twins in California who make no
>claims to certainty. Nor is even attempting any such distinction fair
>if the same distinction is not applied to theists. Nor is it practical
>to attempt such a standard as an admission criteria. Nor should claims of
>certainty have any relevance to qualification for being a Scout even when
>people do make such claims (and many theists do appear to make such a
>claim).
>
I think their stories change over time. At the beginning of all this
when they were 10, they were certain God did not exist. But it makes
no difference. They refused to say the Promise, as written
so were asked to leave. Their father then decided he would force the
BSA to change the Promise to suite his personal tastes.
-bill
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, me@meeself.i () says:
>Joseph Alessi wrote:
>
>
>> Take the second part of the scout oath - "to help other people at all
>> times". Does each and every scout and scouter that you know actually "help
>> other people at all times"? Note that "some of the time" won't do - the
>> oath says "all times". Are these scouts "liars"? Should they be banned
>> from the movement?
>>
>> Or don't you hold all parts of the scout oath and law to the same standard?
>>
Hey guys! Hold on. Remember the ENTIRE Scout Oath. It begins:
On my Honor I will do my best...
We Scoutmasters have to worry all the time about requirements
because we are told to not deviate from the. The Promise (Oath)
states that the Scout intends to do his best. Let's not add to it.
Neil Savage
In article <69g8m1$e...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
writes...
> {in response to my statement that GSUSA accommodates atheists}
>
>Appearently only in some people's minds. Has National stated as much?
>The statement I post in the FAQ would lead me to think otherwise.
>
discriminate against atheists. Any FAQ statement should be interpreted
in that light. I have no direct knowledge of what actually happens in GS
councils outside of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <69el6v$l...@portal.gmu.edu>, mgol...@osf1.gmu.edu
(Mathew E Goldstein) writes...
> ...the people who are running BSA national
>headquarters appear to want to disparage and censor atheistic viewpoints
>from American society and they are using their control of BSA for that
>a camping oriented organization that is dependent on church support as a
>shield which they can wield to defend their claim to need to set
>membership restrictions based on religion and sexual orientation while
>simultaneously employing the same standards on other parts of the
>organization, with or without the agreement of the units effected,
>including units which are public institutions instead of a churches and
>units where the activity is career training instead of camping.
Are you sure this isn't the 'cart before the horse'? Could the BSA perhaps
be taking this exclusionary stand largely BECAUSE they are so
beholden to the chartering religious institutions for support?
Rather than being a shield, could the churches be a especially
powerful influence group? It does seem, however, that nobody in
Irving Texas is chaffing at the aspect of espousing conservative
religious values.
- neil
Neil Savage
In article <69gc4a$h...@news.asu.edu>, nel...@aztec.asu.edu (BILL NELSON)
writes...
>
>
>If you don't subscribe to the DRP or the Oath, but are quiet about
>it then you normally stay. But the program stays the same, the
>Scouts still pledge their duty to God each week, and we still
>talk about God in the program, where appropriate.
>
>Gays seem to be alowed in as leaders as long as they don't
>advocate the life style. Again, the program continues to
>teach the BSA definition of morally straight.
>
>The locals have not 'dumbed down' Scouting values and
>character building, just the debate.
>
I substantially agree with you on this, Bill. So, I guess the
real problem is symbolic, eh? The theists get to 'own' the
symbols of BSA-ism [God and interpreting 'morally straight'
as anti-gay]. The atheists concentrate on the 98% of the program
that has scant relevancy to these symbols of theism - such as
knot-tying, first aid, wilderness survival, and similar camping
skills. In the context in which I do my Scouting, God has only
entered into the mix once a year on Scout Sunday and I haven't had a
discussion about interpreting the BSA Oath (outside this NG) in more than
two decades.
For myself, I think it's about time we cut the atheist a little more
slack and whittled away at the theist hedgemony - in ways similar to
what the GSUSA has done [with liberal GS theist complicity, BTW]. But
that's just the pluralist in me.
- neil