AZMike

I'd agree that it may be better for parents to split up if there is abuse (physical, verbal, emotional) in the house. The demographic stats in countries which have a longer history of same-sex marriages show that relationships between cohabiting homosexuals (married or not) are inherently more unstable than heterosexual couples (married or not). A study that looked at legally registered same-sex couples in Scandinavia, published in the academic journal Demography, found that even though same-sex couples enter their legal unions at older agesâ€â€a marker related to greater relational stabilityâ€â€male same-sex marriages break up at twice the rate of heterosexual marriages. And the break-up rate for lesbians? It is a stunning 77 percent higher than that of same-sex male unions. When controlling for possible confounding factors, the “risk of divorce for female partnerships actually is more than twice that for male unions.†(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4137233?uid=3739552&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103248112033) Marriage of same sex couples seems to increase the risk of instability, A British study of two generations of British couples (one born in 1958, the other 1970) in same-sex cohabiting, opposite-sex cohabiting, and heterosexual marriage relationships found the same-sex relationships are dramatically more likely to break up than the opposite-sex cohabiting and married relationships. The probabilities of the various relationships surviving to the four- and eight-year anniversaries are dramatic. After four years, 88 percent of married opposite sex couples are together, 67 percent of opposite-sex cohabiting couples, and only 37 percent of same-sex cohabitors. After eight years, those numbers fall to 82 percent, 60 percent, and 25 percent, respectively. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x/abstract A study by the very LGBT-friendly National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) , found “a significant difference†in family dissolution rates when comparing lesbian with mother–father headed families, 56 percent and 36 percent respectively. (http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/NLLFS-adolescents-sexuality-2010.pdf) So, being raised in a household where the caregivers are homosexual increases the likelihood that the child would experience greater instability, relocation, changes of schools, etc, and be exposed to greater repeated trauma from parental conflict. This would give support to preferentially assigning custody to the parent who is not homosexual, if this is not an adoptive situation, or to preferentially awarding adoption to a heterosexual couple, if possible.

A girl guide group faces being thrown out of the national association after refusing to force members to drop God from the oath. Troop leaders have rejected new rules saying that the inclusion of God should not be compulsory but a matter of personal choice. But they have now been sent an ‘aggressive’ letter ordering them to back down or leave GirlGuiding UK at the end of the month. Critics branded the approach a ‘move for exclusion’. The Guiding Promise was altered earlier this year so that members now swear ‘to be true to myself and develop my beliefs’ rather than the original ‘to love my God’. But Glynis Mackie, 55, who has been leading the 37th Newcastle Guide Unit in Jesmond for more than 25 years, said the new pledge ‘sidelined’ Christianity. Mrs Mackie, added: ‘This is an example of people not realising the importance of faith, of all faiths, in our community. 'I would go as far as saying that it is an example of faith being sidelined in society.’ ‘I imagine changing the pledge was intended to include more people, but what it is actually doing is excluding those who have faith. ‘I understand why an atheist might not want to make a promise to God, and that is fine by me, but it has to be up to the individual.’ Mrs Mackie and the other leaders of the group slammed the new pledge as a ‘fridge magnet promise that doesn’t really mean anything’. But Chief Guide Gill Slocombe insisted the move ‘opened our arms to welcome even more girls and adults, of all faiths – and none’. The words ‘to be true to myself and develop my beliefs’ have replaced ‘to love my God’, and the words ‘to serve the Queen and my community’ will replace ‘to serve the Queen and my country’. Girl Guiding’s chief commissioner in the North East has told the group their membership of the organisation will be ended on December 31. It means that the unit, which includes more than 100 girls in Rainbows, Brownies, Guides and Rangers from a variety of different faiths, will now have to meet as an independent group. She added: ‘This letter, which is surprisingly aggressive, says that we "will not use" the new Promise and that simply isn’t true. ‘We would use this new form of words but we do want the children to have the choice to say the old Promise if they want to.’ Mrs Mackie wants Girl Guiding to take the same stance as the Scouts’ pledge, which says a member will ‘uphold our Scout values’ and can be taken by those who do not choose to vow to ‘do my duty to God’. She added: ‘They are trying to force us out of Girl Guiding with no process and with only three weeks’ notice. The girls are really incredibly angry and they just want their voices to be heard.’ Chief Guide Gill Slocombe said: ‘Girl guiding is extremely sorry to hear of any Guide group leaving our organisation. ‘By changing the wording of our promise, after an extensive consultation with over 44,000 people, we have opened our arms to welcome even more girls and adults - of all faiths and none - who will benefit from all the fantastic things we do in girl guiding. ‘We hope the new wording will help us reach out to girls and women who might not have considered guiding before, so that even more girls can benefit from everything guiding can offer.’ David Holloway, the vicar of Jesmond Parish Church, wrote in the church’s monthly newsletter: ‘The hard reality is that this new promise is, whether intentionally or not, a move for exclusion.’ The changing of the Guide promise earlier this year sparked 839 official complaints from members amid fears of a split in the movement. In August, one troop in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, vowed to resist the change but was forced to back down by national leaders. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524321/Girl-Guide-group-told-ditch-God-expelled-Troop-faces-removal-national-body-leaders-rejected-new-rules.html#ixzz2nk9SSul6 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

According to the Harvard Poll that was just released, a majority of the youngest millenial voters - those between 18 and 24 - would currently favor throwing Obama out of office. That's the group Obama is counting on to buy into Obamacare, to prevent a death-spiral. (http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=hero&utm_campaign=Fall2013Survey). Obama's approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again. They don't like either party and they don't like congress, but more identify as Independents. Young black voters say they are much less likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election than they were in November 2009, which doesn't bode well for Democratic candidates or those in purple states, and the loss of two key constituencies will also lower the number of activists and volunteers for the Democrats. Among the 18- 29- year olds currently without health insurance, less than 1/3 say they're likely to enroll in the exchange (13% say they will definitely enroll, 16% say they will probably enroll); 41% say they are 50-50 at the moment. This is done without defining it as either the "ACA" or Obamacare. On the OP's original argument, if you call it "Obamacare", young voters' approval/disapproval is 39/56 and if you call it the ACA, their approval/disapproval is 38/57, respectively.

Merlyn, if you are going to respond by saying "you haven't gotten this straight" and "you don't understand the issues," why are you even posting?

I always like those vintage photos of people dressed typically for their time period, with one anomalously dressed person who looks like a time traveller dressed for our time, like this 1940 with what looks like a time-travelling hipster in the crowd: http://www.everseradio.com/top-five-images-of-alleged-time-travelers/

State-funded colleges have demanded that religious clubs must allow people must not prohibit those who do not hold those religious beliefs from joining or becoming officers, in violation of the enumerated constitutional right to Freedom of Association: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/vanderbilt-to-religious-students-are-your-beliefs-really-that-important/ The American Atheists Association has sued to prevent the 9-11 Cross from being displayed in the 9-11 Museum. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316303/atheists-vs-911-cross-nathaniel-botwinick# Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/thomas-menino-boston-mayor-chick-fil-a-letter_n_1703770.html Atheist groups have tried to remove two 13 foot crosses in a remote area of Camp Pendleton erected as a war monument to fallen Marines: http://radio.foxnews.com/2012/04/12/atheist-groups-want-memorial-for-fallen-marines-removed-video/ Atheists tried to remove the name "Seven in Heaven" next to a fire station which lost 7 firefighters in 9-11 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/12/why-religious-freedom-should-be-precious-to-all/ An atheist group intimidated a city into dropping a historic Chtristian landmark from its seal (which begs the question - why don't they have a problem with San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and thousands of other historic place names that honor our Christian heritage?): http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/12277-atheist-group-intimidates-ohio-city-into-dropping-historic-christian-landmark-from-logo/12277-atheist-group-intimidates-ohio-city-into-dropping-historic-christian-landmark-from-logo?start=3 I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans, and the right of religious beliefs to have a place in the marketplace of ideas.

Atheists have sued the IRS over not clamping down on ministers claiming the right of free expression from the pulpit http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/atheists-sue-irs-for-pulpit-freedom-sunday/ The government claims their HHS contraception and abortifacient mandate trumps an enumerated constitutional right, and that individuals can't claim religious freedoms when operating their businesses (but they just got their hand slapped by the D.C. Appellate Court this week, which may affect some of the cases above...: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us/court-rules-contraception-mandate-infringes-on-religious-freedom.html An atheist pressure group demands the military punish a military chaplain for exercising his First Amendment rights, because their feelings might be hurt: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/24/Military-Censors-Christian-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment Atheists in Santa Monica have misused the civic process to prevent Christians and Jews from erecting religious displays, as allowed by law: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html?_s=PM:US An atheist group fought to prevent a school from allowing a school to take kids to a church to watch a Peanuts cartoon: http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/20/atheist-group-backs-parents-who-are-upset-school-wants-to-take-kids-to-see-charlie-brown-christmas-at-church/ Atheists have erected their own monuments to their faith on public land, incidentally, using a nonsensical quote from that old dingbat atheist leader, Madlyn Murray O'Hare: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/28/unveiling-americas-first-public-monument-to-atheism/

jblake47: If the US is truly a religiously tolerant country, why would any one have to compromise the "free expression" of their beliefs or have to alter them to accommodate someone else's complaint. The tolerance is a two-way street. Merlyn: I know it's futile to ask, but DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR USUAL VAGUE HANDWAVING? Well, for starters: Numerous Christian business owners are being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings that their religious beliefs oppose, or lose their livelihoods: Some examples: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1721093.html http://www.kcci.com/Wedding-Cake-Bat...w/-/index.html http://www.komonews.com/news/local/A...=video&c=y http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/li...-couple/51576/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3720447.html http://www.santafenewmexican.com/new...469e212ca.html http://news.yahoo.com/judge-stays-wa...234245194.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us...mont.html?_r=0 Catholic adoption agencies have lost their state funding because they can't assist LGBT couples to adopt children, in violation of their consciences. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wgh.asp?page=1

Interesting. Sounds like the agreement is that Lutheran COs may remove a scout who self-identifies as gay if they are promoting a "social or political agenda," or advocating for a moral view that promotes homosexuality, or being a "distraction" (whatever that may mean), but not for simple self-identification. http://scout-wire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MOU-Lutheran-BSA-no-signatures.pdf Resolved, That the Boy Scouts of America will respect the spiritual and moral responsibility of The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod’s chartering congregations with the understanding that there is no Boy Scout authority which supersedes the authority of the local pastor and the congregation in any phase of the program affecting the spiritual welfare of those who participate; and be it further Resolved, That The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod will respect the membership standard of the Boy Scouts of America, including the stipulation that membership in Scouting may not be denied to a child on the basis of sexual attraction alone, and the further stipulation that the local pastor of the chartering congregation and the leaders of the local troop have the authority to set boundaries, including the determination of whether a Scout is promoting a particular social or political agenda, advocating for a moral view that is inconsistent with the church, or becoming a distraction to the troop, and take such action to enforce set boundaries up to and including removal from the troop; therefore be it finally Resolved, That it is agreed all member congregations of The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod may rely on the stipulations in this Memorandum of Understanding in operating under any charter they sign with the Boy Scouts of America.

We've found that the Platypus gravity filter works quite well for small groups. It's lightweight, doesn't require you to spend endless time pumping (just set it up and let gravity give you 3 liters of crystal clear water), easily backwashed. Most of the time we have a steripen available to give extra coverage against viruses. (Virii?)

My Dad knew and worked with Abbey. I always liked his "Lonely are the Brave." Good movie, too.

BadenP wrote: "Catholics use a variety of prayer books and catechisms and rarely use the Bible in their worship and in religious classes." Weird. I'm pretty sure EVERY Catholic Mass around the world includes a reading from the Old Testament, then a reading from the Psalms, a reading from an Epistle, and finally a reading from one of the Gospels, BP. Over the course of about a year and a half cycle, a daily Catholic churchgoer hears the entire Bible. The prayers commonly used in Mass and daily life are taken directly from the Bible. Every religious class I ever took required and relied on a Bible. The Sacraments all include quotes from the Bible. Most well-educated Catholics can more than hold their own on knowledge of the Bible with any other denomination.

It didn't exactly "start" with the "persecution" of Galileo, Blancmange. You only have academia and a university system because of the Catholic Church. You have the preservation of Greek science because of the Church. The Church was doing cutting-edge research in the sciences - in fact, pretty much the ONLY group funding and doing cutting edge research in the sciences - because of the belief that the Universe is ordered, that it operates by standard rules, and that it is good and worthy of study ("For God so loved _the world_ that he gave it his only begotten son.") You have the scientific method and sciences like geology, volcanology, lunar mapping, seismology, genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and lots more, because the Church has always given people time and money and encouragement to study the sciences. Galileo was an anomaly in Church history who ran afoul of Italian power politics because he was in the middle of Medici factions, because he insisted on publishing theory as fact (consider what happened a particularly brutal form of the academic review process at the time) well before the supporting observations were available, because he insisted on commenting on a science that was outside his field of expertise, and because he was prickly enough to insult another powerful Italian male (formerly one of his best friends and patrons) in public by calling him a simpleton (the whole incident was a lot more like a subplot of "The Sopranos" - "He said THAT about ME?!" - than an instance of some supposed never-ending battle between religion and science.) It was an example of the adoption of Biblical literalism in the face of the Protestant Reformation that made some (by no means all) Catholics adopt a biblical literalism that was never part of the Church before (heck, even St. Augustine said Genesis should be read metaphorically). Galileo was never tortured, never executed, never imprisoned, and his sentence was stay in a friend's house to rebuild his strength and sample his wine cellar. No, he never said "It still moves!" either. He continued to receive the sacraments and remained a Catholic. Any other scientists that were persecuted by the Church? I can't think of any, but can think of lots of scientists that were actually tortured and executed by secular and atheist regimes...not to mention those that have been slandered and lost their funding because their research results weren't in accord with secular social beliefs.

I've seen groups of women scrubbing the village's clothes in a river in the third world who backbite and gossip less than some of the people on this thread.

Nope, you're the one who mis-described what I had said, even though I clearly stated "I'd agree that these are not ethical actions" ...and then you described the examples I gave as ethical actions. Freudian slip? "So, only killing SOME children is moral?" Has your government done the same? Are you sure that no innocent children were ever killed in the war against Nazism? If a people, such as the Canaanites, are in the wrong but still keep their children with them in a battlezone, who would be responsible for keeping them in a battle zone? The Israelites gave them a chance to surrender. Why did they not take it and save their own children's lives? Although again, the evidence is good that the description of total warfare given is hyperbolic. "Hey, that excuses ALL murders that happened 150 years ago or earlier! Wow, great morals you got there." Nope, addressed above. "Uh, where did I say that? Now you seem to just be making up things I've said." Read the sentence before that. The reference was clearly to "you atheists" as a group. You do realize that atheists are very fond of asking why God does not stop evil, right? You have read some atheist literature from your quotation of Hitchens, right? This is a common atheist trope. It is appropriate to ask why atheists object to God acting against evil in this case but demand that he should have acted in a more modern case. "Nope, like I said, arguing about morals falls under "reason" in my book. Supposedly "god"-given morals are arbitrary." No, Merlyn. If there are no objective morals, then one's choice of a moral stance has no moral warrant, and thus, one moral system would be just as meaningless as another, however you may choose to waste time arguing about it. That's arbitrary. And, as I said, from a materialist perspective, there can be no such thing as objective morality. You're arguing about something that cannot even exist from your basic premises.

So, as ethical as a military action for the survival of one’s people can be, then, Merlyn. Clearly not ethnic genocide or ethnic cleansing, as God and His prophets were as hard or harder on His own people when they backslid into immoral behavior - so the issue God had a problem with clearly was sin, not color of skin. More on that later. Now, Merlyn is likely to say, well yes - but what about your God? (Although Merlyn would probably use the lowercase-g, as hip and trendy atheists like to do.) Isn’t what He commanded E-V-I-L? No, clearly not. Even by an atheist’s own reasoning. Let’s unpack this, you and I. For an atheist, the Israelite’s actions were clearly ethical. First, by a purely materialist/naturalist conception of atheism, there is no objective good and no objective evil. Purely natural forces like natural selection can’t create that, as there are too many variations in cultures to account for the Christian moral code (or even its pale imitation, Harris’s “flourishingâ€Â) by genetic or social selection. If there is no objective good or evil (as Dawkins and Harris claim), we are limited to what each culture accepts as ethical - and more accurately, what the strongest, wealthiest, and most powerful members of a society feels is “ethical.†Thus, the Israelites were not bound by what Merlyn, (sitting in his easy chair in his comfortable home and typing on his laptop, with an abundant supply of food in his pantry and fresh purified water coming from the nearest faucet and his enemies kept a comfortable distance away from him by rough men who maintain the borders) conceives of as “ethical.†The Israelites were in quite a different position. Even if the war had been an unprovoked and power-hungry war of conquest (which the OT says it was not), it would still be ethical under a materialist/naturalist atheistic perspective, as it was culturally based. You do not find any writings in the ancient Near East (or, anywhere in the world at that time) describing actions of war as immoral or unethical, unless it was happening to them, in which case it was less “This is an immoral act!†than “This really sucks!†At best, you got to write an epic ballad about your people’s glorious victory, at worst, your people were wiped out and/or enslaved, your children were sacrificed to the enemy’s gods, your wife and daughters and sons taken into the harems of your mortal enemies to be raped, and absolutely nobody cared to hear your side of the story. (The sole exception, actually, was, um....the Israelites, who alone among ancient writers actually expressed empathy for other conquered peoples even when they didn’t have a dog in the fight. Huh.) But let’s say we are not godless atheists, and we believe in an objective moral code and a Supreme Lawgiver. Even if we accept the literal description in the OT, God is the father of life, he gives it, and he receives it. From our perspective, when someone died, they were dealt with justly, and went on to eternal happiness or punishment (or possibly, for Catholics, the half-way house of Purgatory for a while). Those who acted immorally on the winning side in battle would have to suffer the same judgment. No one got off scot-free, and no one who was good died forever. People may have died under the sword, but every one of them would have been dead by now, anyway. Death comes to us all. It came to the enemies of the Israelites sooner because of their actions, which were abhorrent, in opposition to God, and (even to our modern eyes) evil. So, if God commanded, God would still provide. (I realize you don’t share these basic assumptions, Merlyn - but it does reflect a consistent theological worldview, a consistency that atheism does not share on the issue of objective morality.) I mention the issue of God as Justice because we tend to overlook that and focus on his nature as the Good. Can’t have one without t’other, though - what good is there, in this life or the next, if good is not rewarded and evil punished? In the story of Joshua, we have a very clear example of God acting as both Justice and Goodness. Was God acting in an arbitrary fashion? No. Did he give the Canaanite tribes sufficient warning? Dude, he gave them 400 YEARS to reform their ways, clear out, and stop hassling his Chosen People before telling the Israelites that enough was enough, get your John Waynes together and saddle your horses (or chariots, or whatever.) Did the Canaanites deserve being attacked? By their standards and probably our own, yes. Both the evidence from the Old Testament, AS WELL AS independent archaeological finds and ancient texts (from non-Israelite cultures) reflect that these people were at least as bad as the Nazis. They practiced ritual sacrifices of children and infants to their Gods (sufficient cause right there), as well as a host of immoral acts, including incest, bestiality, and homosexuality (I know the last one is not as bad as the first few, if it was not coerced and was among two consenting and committed adults in a tastefully decorated apartment and all the other appurtenances of our modern understanding of what “gay†means, but it was what it was, and it was abhorrent to the Israelites). These immoral activities were celebrated in the Canaanite’s own surviving literature, both among themselves and their gods. They sporadically made war on the Israelites themselves, and they wanted to and did corrupt God’s people by enticing them to participate in such activities as well - such as infanticide and child sacrifice to Moloch, which was rightfully abhorrent to the Israelite leaders and to God. Atheists are quite fond of asking why God does not stop evil. You complain why didn’t God stop the Nazis - well he did, through his servants. If the Canaanites were as bad as we know them to have been, wasn’t it appropriate to go to war to stop them, again, using his servants? By this account He clearly did, but the atheists still aren’t happy. You complain when He doesn’t stop evil, you complain when He does stop evil. Will you make up your freaking minds? Oh yeah - a subjective code of morality fits the definition of "arbitrary" as you cited it, Merlyn. It is arbitrary.

Ah, Merlyn is backtracking from what he said earlier. Perhaps we should summarize. So, the original question was to answer a question Christopher Hitchens posed - are there ethical actions that could be done by a believer but not by an unbeliever? Hitchens and Merlyn and Moosetracker seemed to believe not. I pointed out several examples, all of which an unbeliever would be unable to do (without being hypocritical, which would invalidate the ethical nature of the acts), and which would be considered ethical in that they were done out of concern and compassion for another, and would cause no harm for that person or anyone else. Merlyn and Moosetracker claim an exemption, because they apparently believe that such actions are inefficacious. As I pointed out, this is not a valid answer as a) It requires one to accept the assumptions of a comparatively small subculture (about 7% of the U.S. population) against the assumptions of 93%; and b) even if one accepts the beliefs of the atheists, they would still be ethical, as one’s initial beliefs do not determine if an act is ethical or unethical, as the acts I describe contribute to the overall good (psychological, if not spiritual) of the individuals concerned. As I said, this is what allows atheists to act morally even if their initial premises are false. Likewise, to use an example, a deranged person could contribute to a charity because he believes a giant panda that lives under Schenectady will be pleased. False premise, but an ethical act, as any reasonable person would agree. He is doing good for another and not causing harm, even if his premises are flawed. Ta-dah! Hitchen’s supposed “dilemma†collapses in either case! Thanks, folks, and don’t forget to tip the waiters! So, although the question was answered, Merlyn still feels like he needs to make some kind of point, so he brings up an unrelated issue, that was not part of my argument - he now changes Hitchen's question (first carefully uprooting each goalpost in it’s turn) to ask if the actions of Joshua in the Old Testament - acts which arguably did cause harm, and resulted in the taking of life and do were not part of my argument, are “ethical†or perhaps, “moral?†I didn’t really address this because I answered your initial questions (and quite handily I may add), but it pops up a lot with atheists, so I’ll try to address it briefly. Yes. Here’s why. Now, one could argue that because God wills a thing, it is right (as did Sir William of Ockham, who formulated the “Occam’s Razor†tool of logic that atheists are so fond of using and misusing), but I don’t think that’s a sufficient answer for most. We first have to look at the premises of Merlyn’s question - if the premises are flawed, the whole question is like asking “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?†If I am not now beating my wife, and never have beat my wife, the question itself is has zero information content as it follows from a false premise. So, DID Joshua commit genocide and wipe out all those people? Clearly not, as the Bible reflects. How do we reconcile Joshua Chapters 10 and 11 where Joshua left no survivors and destroyed all who breathed, with the later Book of Judges, where the Canaanites clearly DID survive because that chapter is all about the “Canaanization†of the Israelites, and how the become prey for the immoral behavior of their enemies (about which more later). So obviously, not everyone was killed and a significant portion of their enemies survived to create havoc among the Israelites. Now, people have been reading the OT for millennia, and some of those people were as sharp and observant as I or even Merlyn...do you think no one ever noticed this apparent discrepancy before? Why did they think it happens that one book of the OT says Joshua killed everything, and then in the next chapter, those people are still alive and active and spreading evil? Was Joshua guilty of body count inflation? Was God as bad as Robert McNamara? Because clearly, the OT is a collection of texts in varying literary styles and genres - military narratives, genealogy, prophetic hyperbole, poetry, and parable. The texts included in the Bible by Christians were held to be inspired enough for inclusion in the canon with the NT because they related in some way to a central event (for Christians) - the new Covenant of Christ and the preparation of His people. Some of the early Christians even argued that the OT should NOT be included within the Bible, as it did not comport with the message of Christ, but they lost. This is because most Christians throughout history were not biblical literalists (a movement that essentially began with the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation,) and you can see early fathers of the Church such as Augustine describing the nature of some of the OT (including the creation account of Genesis) as metaphorical. That doesn’t mean it is not true, it means that it can be truth wrapped in a parable. Christians consider the Holy Bible to be divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, but do not generally believe that God wrote it by guiding the hands of the Prophets (as Muslims generally believe of the Koran). Generally, however, the Israelite historical and military accounts of the OT seem to be accurate, and there is some external evidence (Non-OT texts and archaeological evidence) that supports much of these accounts. We can say it is a largely accurate account of events, as expressed through the eyes of the writers. Those who study the Bible know that you have to be able to understand the conventions of these different genres and styles to have an understanding of the Bible’s message, just as you need to be able to understand the language in which it was translated. There are very specific references and terminology within the prophetic portions, for instance, that call back to earlier references and have very specific meanings for what happens, although some sound strange to us now. Clearly, the common convention for describing military battles and conquests within the ancient Near East was exaggerated and bombastic, both in and out of the OT. Paul Copan has assembled an impressive body of references from non-OT sources of the same time and place that describe peoples being wiped off the face of the earth, not a stone was left lying against a stone, the people ceased to exist, etc., when we know that the people and culture did survive, even after a particularly violent battle or campaign. This is something that was not unique to the ancient military, or the Bible, incidentally - throughout history we hear, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it;†“We wiped out the enemy;†“They were wiped out to the last man,†“We utterly and completely annihilated them,†and so forth, even when these statements are clearly hyperbolic. Delenda est Carthago, and all that jazz. So, from this entirely reasonable view of history and textual research, it appears that a hard-fought battle occurred, the Israelites were victorious (for a time), and not all the enemy’s women and children and donkeys were actually killed. Some probably were, as your own country killed women and children and animals at Dresden and Hiroshima and Fallujah, Merlyn- war is a terrible thing, and the loss of innocent lives almost always comes with it. The Israelites had no resources to keep a Guantanamo Bay prison for their POWs, so they kept them as slaves.) Given the nature of what we know about military combat at that time, a large army was assembled, they marched forth, and they (often) lay siege to the enemy city. Those who wanted to leave generally had ample time to do so out the back gates. So, what do we have then, Merlyn? Joshua fought a battle at the command of his God, the battle and results were described in an exaggerated fashion, as military epics often are, and enough people survived that they continued as a people. That’s not genocide, clearly, unless you consider every battle to be genocide. The rules for the Israelites in warfare seemed harsh, if you want to use the Historian’s Fallacy, but compared to the actions of their opponents, the rules placed upon them by God made them look like the Amish.

Merlyn: "None of the ethical actions you cherry-picked, no, but, for example, Joshua and his troops, etc. etc." So you agree that the actions I described were, in fact, ethical actions. And Hitchen's supposed dilemma collapses. Sweet! And why do you think the fact that people will argue over an issue that is not based in any objective moral code somehow makes it anything other than arbitrary?

Merlyn, you wrote, "Once you start bringing in arbitrary actions that gods want, even killing other people (that god wants you to kill) magically becomes an ethical act. This doesn't mean I'm going to consider it ethical." As best I can recall, none of the ethical actions that believers can do that unbelievers can't (which I describe) included killing those whom God has commanded us to kill, nor are they arbitrary. By the same token, however, an atheist can argue for the murder of the unborn, the murder of the aged, or the murder of the deformed using the cloak of, say, Utilitarianism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariate or Improving the Human Breeding Stock or what have you, if there is no objective system of value that isn't, at base level, simply a cultural or personal aesthetic choice. Now THAT'S arbitrary. That's one of the big problems with atheist-based "morality" and "ethics," Merlyn. Moosetracker also has some problems relating to her idea that we do moral acts such as described because "God likes it" but it's also "Self-Interest." As I said, one could be wrong in one's premises and still be committing an ethical act in many circumstances. None of the things I describe harm anyone and would tend to promote the well being of those outside myself. That seems to be a workable definition of "moral" or "ethical" by anyone's description, I don't think anyone would argue that one must be correct in all one's beliefs to be "moral" or "ethical." I disagree with much of the theology of the Salvation Army denomination, but would be unable to say that their daily actions, which flow from those ideas, are not both moral and ethical. You also seemed not to have read the post before you formed a snap opinion, MT - "I also loved how you worded it.. "Tithing to the evangelical fund for one's religion."... Hmm.. so giving to LDS if you are of that religion doesn't count, nor a Jewish temple? If you are atheist and give to an orphanage or to the community soup kitchen, that doesn't count??.It is you AZMike who try to move the goal post into your narrow definition." Clearly, I noted that atheists CAN act morally, and the reason why is that the that the relative correctness of one's starting beliefs has little to no impact on the morality of one's actions, if the action is consistent with our (objective, transcendent) view of morality - which is why an atheist's actions can still be moral even if he or she denies the objective, transcendent nature of morality (Huh!...So that could lead us to believe that, um, ethics are objective and not subjective....and that would mean that Hitchens', or Merlyn's, or Moosetracker's subjective parameters of morality are not applicable here, and that Sam Harris is full of hooey.) To continue the example, I may disagree with the Salvation Army's theology, but even if I am correct, it is a moral act for me to drop some spare change in their collection bucket outside Target. Would it be moral for me to contribute to a fund for, say, a Jewish temple? Sure. They are more right than wrong, in my view. Obviously, not ALL actions are moral if the starting premises are wrong, or even right - deciding that one must massacre the Vendeans in pursuit of the atheist goals of the French Revolution, or the massacre of the Christeros in pursuit of the atheist goals of the Mexican Revolution, or the genocide of the Kulaks in pursuit of the atheist goals of Communism, some actions are clearly wrong whatever the rationale for them - but this is more evidence that a Christian view of morality is most likely to be correct. So on the contrary, Moosetracker - my views are broad and expansive and quite a lovely thing to behold. My goalposts are wide, but remain firmly and objectively fixed.

Merlyn wrote (quoting Christopher Hitchens): "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. The second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? "The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first awaits a convincing reply." Hitch's argument was a stupendously inane one, Merlyn, because it allowed him to move the goalposts to avoid having to deal with an answer. Clearly, there are numerous ethical actions that can be made by a believer that an unbeliever would not be able to do without acting unethically, from his very own atheist perspective. Offering praise and prayer to one's creator. Offering one's life and vocation ad majorem Dei gloriam, to the greater glory of God. Teaching one's daughter to pray. Converting from a religion that one does not feel is consistent with God's teachings, to one that one feels is more consistent. (How would an atheist manage to do THAT?) Tithing to the evangelical fund for one's religion. And, I would argue, Horatio Spofford's composition of "It is Well With My Soul," after suffering what he suffered: http://www.bywayofbeauty.com/2012/01/could-atheist-have-written-it-is-well.html#more An atheist could do none of those things, Merlyn. He could go through the motions for a presumed psychological benefit, but he would be a hypocrite in his own eyes, and thus, not be acting ethically. When confronted with these common-sense responses, Hitch would usually respond angrily that they were not ethical actions, as prayer didn't work. So, he would move the goal posts to avoid the answer. Because if the whole world did not agree with Hitch and HIS definition of what is moral or ethical, then he didn't have to accept the answer. It's a pointless argument for him to have made, not because his argument couldn't be answered, but because it was constructed in such a way that he could always redefine the argument to avoid losing. For one to accept that Hitch's formulation of proper ethical behavior was correct, one would have to accept that the 7% of the population that is atheist is the only subculture that has the correct definition of what is ethical or moral, which of course is preposterous. Obviously, because 100 people believe a thing and you don't doesn't necessarily make it true. Nor 1000, not 10,000, nor 100,000, nor even 1,000,000. But when 93% of the friggin' country believes something, Merlyn will have a very hard time making a case that everyone else is wrong but he and his tiny coterie of friends are right. As Guy Consolmagno said, "If everyone else’s calculations come up with 7 and you get 700, then everyoneâ€â€including youâ€â€will agree on whose result you’re going to check first to look for the mistake. It is illogical to assume that you’re always smarter than everyone else (even if, alas, it’s an all-too-common techie failing)." As Hitchens was trying to use a normative ethical argument rather than a descriptive ethical argument, he also overlooked the likelihood that even if one is incorrect in one's basic assumptions, one could still act ethically and morally. Even if the believers whose actions I cited as replies to Hitch's arguments are wrong and there is no God and prayer is inefficacious, they would still be acting ethically as they were doing what they thought was right and moral, and their actions would not harm those involved and would probably do some good - prayer has been shown to cause positive psychological changes within the believer, and (secular) studies have shown those who pray live lives with less depression, substance abuse, etc. So, these actions would necessarily be ethical and moral, even if the actors were wrong in their presumptions. And this would have to be true, Merlyn, if atheists are capable of acting morally and ethically (as they can) even if their basic assumptions are false. Of course, if one really holds to a materialist conception of atheism, one would have to hold that there is no such thing as a truly objective set of values, and that free will is itself a false by-product of the random collision of atoms and the fulmination of chemical processes within the bags of chemical goo that we are, as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, argue. On this view, there is no such thing as an objective set of values that exist outside of societal norms, and so there is no such thing as an ethical or moral act - if one does not have free will, as Sam Harris claims, how can one be said to "act" ethically, Merlyn? That's why Thomas Nagel's new book is causing such a meltdown in atheist circles - although an atheist himself, he recognizes materialism as a self-defeater for most of the atheist arguments. He doesn't have a good answer, but he's intellectually honest enough to recognize the problem and call out his fellow philosophers for their presumptions. I met Hitchens twice, and for all his irascibility and (what I would consider) intellectually weak arguments, I liked him. I hope he's in a good place now. I give him credit for being a better writer than his neo-atheist cohort, and for being anti-abortion, as was his intellectual hero and fellow atheist George Orwell. No one is wrong all the time.

You make it sound like the Werner Ehrhard EST courses that were popular in the 1970s.

I can't remember all the details from the (deleted) original description of the incident, but as best I can recall, the scout in question cajoled younger scouts into fondling each other inside a sleeping bag or under a blanket, using some game or dare called "A Night in Heaven" or somesuch. Obviously, National was advised, but: A) Were the other boys' parents advised of this incident? If not, why not? B) Were the police advised (by the troop or National), as BSA policy requires? If so, did they conduct an investigation? C) If National did not report such an incident (which merited the expulsion of a scout for behavior) to law enforcement, then why the hell not? Since the majority of reported sexual molestation involves other youths, what the law requires of any such report of the possible sexual touching of a child - whether by another child or not - is to contact the police department in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred (this may be a sheriff's department if the campsite was in an unincorporated area.) The investigator will conduct an initial interview of any adult witnesses, but not the scouts. The scouts will then be interviewed at a multidisciplinary center (MDC) where a certified juvenile forensic interviewer (who may be a civilian employee of the MDC, or may be a sworn investigator) will conduct an interview of the victim(s) and any juvenile witnesses and any juvenile against whom allegations were made, using a court-approved, non-directed questioning protocol. All interviews are videotaped. The information is provided to the investigator who will make the decision whether to present the case to the local prosecutor. It's a fair system which protects the accuser and the accused with numerous levels of review as a safeguard. The scouter is ONLY present in that system as a reporter (possibly a mandated reporter, in some jurisdictions.) The scouter does NOT get to make his or her own determination if this is "really" an incident of abuse or a sex crime. If a scouter makes that decision on his or her own, how is that different than the old system of Scouting where allegations of abuse (by scouts or scouters) were sometimes reported through the BSA, often without reporting it to the police? If there is a rise in this kind of incident in the "new" BSA, will we see a rise in attempts to cover-up or ignore similar incidents out of a desire to a) avoid embarrassing the troop or the BSA, b) to protect the new policy? It may well be that the police were advised, and either conducted a proper investigation or failed to do so. I can't remember if it was mentioned in the original post or not.

As the real Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill that called for homosexual men to be castrated, your choice of a screen name is weirdly ironic.

How about this: Tell him the truth - that this was the result of an extremely divisive vote, and that some adults in the organization voted to change the traditions of the BSA. It was a political decision, as factions within the BSA who felt it was the right thing to change the policy, contended against those who felt the traditional policy was correct and should remain. As a result of the vote, many friendships have been ruptured, many good men and women and scouts will be leaving the BSA, probably forever, and we will almost certainly see a net loss of leadership over the years. Those who support the inclusion of openly homosexual scouts also mostly support the inclusion of openly homosexual leaders, and this will probably almost inevitably happen, sooner or later. This will probably also cause a greater loss of adult leaders and scouts. Those who support the inclusion of bisexual men, homosexual men, and transsexual men in the BSA see their cause as such a worthy goal, that they consider the loss of all those people and the traditions of scouting as an acceptable price to pay. Many of these supporters also support the loss of your scout's friends and leaders as they think it will purify the BSA of people who don't think like them and don't share their values, and will lead to a more homogenous BSA. No pun intended. Your scout's religious beliefs are in line with the vast majority of all religions on the planet, and they are nothing for him to be ashamed of. The fact that he holds his moral beliefs to be more important than being a member of an organization, or holding a title or a rank, or wearing a uniform, however hard he has worked towards those goals or however attractive they might seem to him, already means even if he chooses to leave scouting, he has already learned the most important lesson that the "old" scouting program had to offer him - that is, to do what he thinks is right even if it isn't popular, or if it isn't in accord with popular culture. He has fulfilled the goals of scouting in a manner far better, and far more impressively, than becoming an "Eagle" or anything else could do - he has become a Man, in the truest sense of the term. Obviously, it is not your purpose, and it would be extremely objectionable, to try to argue him out of one of the tenets of his religious faith. That is not your role, or the role of anyone else in that scout's life except his family or his religious leader. I know no one on this forum would consider trying to do that. But... You may also consider telling him that as this was a political decision, it can also be changed... as a political act. This is one of the lessons of citizenship that we try to teach. If an organization (or a government) does something with which you disagree, you can quit...or you can stay and work to change it from within. Should he choose to stay in scouting, if he feels strongly about his beliefs, then he should make his goal to restore scouting to what he thinks it was, and could be once again. You should tell him that this will be an extremely unpopular position to take, both with many adult leaders who feel that this is now the status quo as well as some scouts and parents, and certainly with the media, and that the decision to change the policy, in the words of the scout executives, will not be revisited. For many on the left, the feeling is that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is...negotiable." Tell him that this, of course, is self-serving nonsense - nothing in politics is ever finally decided, and the landscape of American politics is littered with the shattered remains of ideas that were once held to be "settled." If he chooses to go this route, he should talk it over very carefully with his parents, but if he chooses to go forward with it, great! He will remain in scouting and still be true to his ideals. It will be a hard trail to take, and he should remember that, as James Thurber said, you should never wear your best suit when you go forth to fight for Truth and Justice. You could recommend that he decide quite clearly what his goals are, and how to present them in a way that is consistent with the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, and the best ideals of citizenship and participatory democracy, and also how to present them in a way that is not needlessly hurtful or cruel to others. It will probably be more helpful, and honest, to frame the issue in terms of religious freedom and freedom of association, as those are constitutional principles that are directly applicable and with which most Americans are familiar. Suggest he decide what changes in the new policy he would like to see, at a council or at a national level, whether that is complete revocation of the new policy or modification. He should research how a member of an organization can effect change within that organization - the Citizenship in the Community merit badge handbook is not a bad start - and reading, and really understanding, Roberts Rules of Order is also helpful. He should educate himself on the administrative structure of the Boy Scouts, at the Council level and at the National level. It would be helpful for him to read some books on participatory democracy. Copies of Robert A. Heinlein's handbook on running a local political campaign, "Take Back Your Government" can still be found on Amazon or in Kindle edition, and it is still relevant as well as being a fun read. He can also probably find several books on how students with a traditionally religious or conservative background can effect change at a local level. He should also probably look at the other side's rulebook - Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," if he's old enough enough to read it, can be an enlightening read. One should always look at what the other side has done to see what can be learned from their successes, as well as where they faltered. The homosexual political pressure group "Scouting for All" made good use of social networks like Facebook petitions and Twitter campaigns, a tactic that was not really tried by those who wanted to keep traditional values in scouting. Your scout has the advantage of being young, so he grew up with, and is probably quite familiar with, digital media in a way that old fogies like you and I are not. You could further advise your scout that if he feels strongly enough about his values to stay in the organization and fight for change, he needs to find allies. If other friends have left over the issue (and that's hard to deal with - we lost three scouts at last count, plus their parents, over this issue), suggest that he can call his friends who have left the troop, or boys he knows who have left other troops, or friends who have not been in scouting but share his values, and see if they would be interested in returning or joining to fight for what they think is right. As the well-publicized former eagle scouts who pushed (and continue to push) for adding a homosexual focus to scouting found strong allies in Scouting for Choice, GLAAD, and the ACLU, he should research legal foundations that are directly concerned with religious freedoms. He may need their help at some point. Will he succeed? Perhaps not. But he won't know until he tries, and at least he won't ever feel like he didn't give his best. As the former Chief Scout Citizen once said, it is better to spend oneself in a worthy cause, knowing that if at worst, if he or she fails, one at least failed while daring greatly. And encourage him to stay in scouting as an adult leader, past Eagle. Plus, it can be grand fun to be a burr under the plush saddles of the politically correct. Trust me. That may be (and probably is) way more than your scout would consider. He may simply choose to quit and focus on school sports, or finding a summer job, or just stay home and play video games, or something. But here's hoping he doesn't. We need to retain people with high ideals in scouting.

EmberMike, didn't your write that if the vote didn't go your way, you were going to take your kids and put them in the BPSA or something?