Duty to God and country
Brian Salter-Duke
about duty to God, where Stan is really trying to say that these duties
are the same.
It is quite clear that the BSA, every other Scout organisation I know
something about and WOSM, thinks there are two clearly distinct duties.
One is patriotic, respect for the county you are a citizen of. The other
is about spiritual development, and this can be expressed in many
different ways, but they are all not talking about patriotism. Stan is
wrong because he is confusing these. He is really pretending there is no
duty to develop spiritually as a key part of Scouting. He wants to keep
it outside Scouting with the parents. Scouting has always said the
parents assist with the specifics of how a member develops spiritually,
but it has never said it has no part within Scouting.
I have problems with spiritual development. I am not even sure that I
think it exists separate from mental developement. I certainly do not
find saying "I will do my duty to God" in any way assists me. I do
however recognise that Scouting considers spiritual development to be a
key part of its method and that it should not be confused with patriotic
values which are about another key part of the method. Stan simply does
not understand what Scouting actually says it is all about.
It would help if we could bring discussion here back to criticism and
defense of what the Scouting method actually is, not some deluded view
of what it is that is only held by one person.
Brian.
--
Brian Salter-Duke Melbourne, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
J. Hugh Sullivan
I think that has been discussed thoroughly over the past decade and is
the root of our differences. Next, I can only discuss BSA - I'm not
interested in the guidelines of WOSM if they depart from BSA. Last,
this country was founded by religious people who refused establishment
of religion by the state They expected people to be religious but
without a legislated requirement.
BSA is incomparable. I think that is because, in part, BSA does not
accept atheists or homos. There is no basis for concluding otherwise
because that's what BSA is and it works. Maybe it works in limited
areas but would be unacceptable to large portions of the country.
As long as a person admits he has an acceptable duty to God, he is
acceptable to BSA and BSA has no desire to tell him what that duty
must be. Thus, in theory, BSA is open to all; in reality it is not.
The atheist chooses not to accept the membership requirements as much
as BSA refuses to accept a person who does not admit a duty to God.
I think duty to Country is obviously different. In fact the word "and"
between God and Country leaves no doubt.
Now the naysayers can say BSA shouldn't be that way, that more
tolerance works in other countries - but I say who gives a rats rear
end how it shouldn't be or what others do. It works like Scouters want
it to work in my experience.
Hugh
Lee
>BSA is incomparable. I think that is because, in part, BSA does not
>accept atheists or homos.
But you realize, I think, that this opinion is not based on
anything more than the fact that you prefer to believe it.
You don't know that allowing atheists or gays into BSA would
do any damage to the organization. You simply choose to
believe that it would.
--
Brian Salter-Duke
My main point was that duty to God and duty to country are different,
unlike what Stan believes. That difference is held by BSA and WOSM and
every Scout Association I know about.
> BSA is incomparable. I think that is because, in part, BSA does not
> accept atheists or homos. There is no basis for concluding otherwise
> because that's what BSA is and it works. Maybe it works in limited
> areas but would be unacceptable to large portions of the country.
>
> As long as a person admits he has an acceptable duty to God, he is
> acceptable to BSA and BSA has no desire to tell him what that duty
> must be. Thus, in theory, BSA is open to all; in reality it is not.
> The atheist chooses not to accept the membership requirements as much
> as BSA refuses to accept a person who does not admit a duty to God.
>
> I think duty to Country is obviously different. In fact the word "and"
> between God and Country leaves no doubt.
Exactly. How come Stan doesn not see that? My point was they we should
discuss the real situation, not the made up situation that exists only
in Stan's mind.
> Now the naysayers can say BSA shouldn't be that way, that more
> tolerance works in other countries - but I say who gives a rats rear
> end how it shouldn't be or what others do. It works like Scouters want
> it to work in my experience.
Maybe it does. It is interesting that one does not read here of BSA
Scouters wanting to change and bend the rules. On uk.rec.scouting one
reads that all the time and they are always changes to more tolerance
from a situation that is already more tolerant than the BSA.
Interesting.
Brian.
> Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
One could also say that ANYTHING I believe is because I choose to
believe it. You make no point.
If you guarantee that atheists and homos will become theists and
hetero I will change my choice.
The point is not whether to accept them in BSA - BSA does not. It's
not whether it's right or wrong or good or bad or whatever - BSA does
not accept them and I absolutely agree.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<b_d...@bigpond.net.invalid> wrote:
We agree.
>> BSA is incomparable. I think that is because, in part, BSA does not
>> accept atheists or homos. There is no basis for concluding otherwise
>> because that's what BSA is and it works. Maybe it works in limited
>> areas but would be unacceptable to large portions of the country.
>>
>> As long as a person admits he has an acceptable duty to God, he is
>> acceptable to BSA and BSA has no desire to tell him what that duty
>> must be. Thus, in theory, BSA is open to all; in reality it is not.
>> The atheist chooses not to accept the membership requirements as much
>> as BSA refuses to accept a person who does not admit a duty to God.
>>
>> I think duty to Country is obviously different. In fact the word "and"
>> between God and Country leaves no doubt.
>
>Exactly. How come Stan doesn not see that? My point was they we should
>discuss the real situation, not the made up situation that exists only
>in Stan's mind.
I try to stay out of most of those posts - to me, they lost their
usefulness long ago. I agree with Stan's right to believe what he
does. I understand what he believes and why. I would like the world to
agree with him, but reality des not permit.
>> Now the naysayers can say BSA shouldn't be that way, that more
>> tolerance works in other countries - but I say who gives a rats rear
>> end how it shouldn't be or what others do. It works like Scouters want
>> it to work in my experience.
>
>Maybe it does. It is interesting that one does not read here of BSA
>Scouters wanting to change and bend the rules. On uk.rec.scouting one
>reads that all the time and they are always changes to more tolerance
>from a situation that is already more tolerant than the BSA.
>Interesting.
This newsgroup is peculiar, if not unique. Persuasions that are
discriminated against are more likely to be activist than those of us
who are happy with the status quo. I know hundreds of people who agree
with my philosophy (if not my belligerence) but you could not pay them
to post here. Thus you don't see many posts siding with BSA.
I can't imagine more irony. A religion that preaches tolerance is
intolerant. But what we can't tolerate is sins of commission - atheism
and homosexuality are sins of commission whether or not you agree.
However, I don't see it exactly that way. Atheism is not my problem -
it's the problem of the atheist.
Hugh
Chimp
>
> But what we can't tolerate is sins of commission
Interesting. In what way? Sin of omission
would seem more theologically defendable.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
I see your point. But,
I think the norm is to be theist. So refusal to be theist is
"commission".
Lee
Webster respectfully disagrees:
Omission \O*mis"sion\, n. [L. omissio: cf. F. omission. See
{Omit}.]
1. The act of omitting; neglect or failure to do something
required by propriety or duty.
--
J. Hugh Sullivan
Theism is not "something required". At most it is the norm or
expected.
Hugh
Chimp
> On 16 Jun 2008 Lee wrote:
>
>
>>>>Interesting. In what way? Sin of omission
>>>>would seem more theologically defendable.
>
>>> to be theist is "commission".
>
>> Webster respectfully disagrees:
>
>> Omission
>> to do something required by propriety or duty.
>
> Theism is not "something required". At
> most it is the norm or expected.
If theism is not "required" then why is it
a sin not to be a theist?
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
I thought we were talking BEYOND Christianity. So, for you, it is not
a requirement. If it was you could join BSA.
Hugh
Chimp
>
>>> Theism is not "something required". At
>>> most it is the norm or expected.
>
>>If theism is not "required" then why is it
>>a sin not to be a theist?
>
> Christianity. So, for you, it is not
> a requirement. If it was you could join BSA.
But earlier you said that atheism was
a "sin" that "we" [meaning BSA?] could
not tolerate. Then above you said that
theism was not required, implying that
atheism is not a sin.
So, in what way is atheism a "sin"
that "we" [BSA?] cannot tolerate?
Note that BSA does not require
Christianity, so Christianity cannot
be part of the answer.
Chimp
Lee
Which is exactly what "required by propriety or duty" means.
--