AZMike

Amidst all the angst directed at Mark and Trail Life, I have to ask the question: What did you think would happen after the idiotic membership policy change???

If you want, I can go back and quote some of the posts on this forum at the time of the policy change where people demanding gay inclusion wrote, "if you don't like the new policy, go off and start your own organization!"

Are you surprised when, after a change was made that was contrary to the religious beliefs of a large group of experienced, skilled adult leaders, some chose to do just that? And are you surprised when they took many of the organizational lessons and skills they learned as scout leaders and applied them to their new organization, along with some new ways of doing things that look fairly well thought-out?

Did you expect them to slink off and swear never to become involved in a youth program again?

Of course they were going to begin a competing organization! Why wouldn't they? It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences for a reason.

Is your concern that by allowing Scouts to transfer their rank and awards over to their new program, or using elements of the BSA (that are and have been used by other youth organizations), that they are "copying" us? I point out that when I posted a thread asking who would transfer over to the GSUSA if they allowed boys, and didn't exclude atheists or gay leaders (i.e., a more "progressive" organization), and if they allowed former BSA to transfer their ranks and awards over, at least one poster on this thread said he would consider it. I don't think that makes him a creonte or a vulture, it just means that if an organization better fit the personal needs and values of him and his sons, he might cross over. Trail Life's stated mission is to use a boy-led outdoors program as a Christian youth ministry. BSA uses a boy-led youth program for wider goals, including theistic religious values.

I will stay with BSA, despite some boneheaded membership decisions that leave both sides feeling unsatisfied and angry, but I suspect Trail Life will find a niche, and will probably pick up quite a few Christian churches that might otherwise have chosen to charter a troop. From their website, they will not charter to non-Tridentine churches, so the LDS will remain in BSA, and only Messianic Jewish temples can charter with Trail Life. It doesn't really sound like many non Christian church COs will be involved with Trail Life, and the number of secular civic organizations that charter are probably dropping (I guess - anyone have any specific figures?) and the pool of potential public schools has disappeared, so yes, they will probably pick up some potential or current COs. Whose fault is that?

I note that they will allow boys "with no faith" to join, so maybe Merlyn will be satisfied. Although I would guess there will be some evangelization.

Interesting enough, though, former BSA Troops that charter with us find their membership increases after they become TLUSA Troops. This was a surprise to us. We had no idea there would be so many people who would not be interested in BSA that see something that we are doing that attracts them. Still, though we consider our growth to be significant (over 10,000 members in less than 5 months. We've released these numbers many times. Media reports don't always carry them.), this is not our focus.

Mark, thanks for dropping by to answer questions.

Any idea (anecdotally or official figures) what percentage of people signing up were formally affiliated with the BSA and what percentage were never involved in Scouting?

From your conversations with former BSA, what are the main reasons they are citing for switching over? The new membership policies, dissatisfaction with other BSA policies, or other issues?

Because many Troops functioned unofficially until their charters were complete, we know some families are slower in getting their boys registered since they were attending for free before chartering. We don't have "seasonal registration." Since all of our chartering and member registration is online, Troops and members join and rejoin on their anniversary date. We do expect the real numbers to be reflected once our online advancement modules are fully operative (within a few weeks), as boys will need to be registered to be in the advancement system. They won't progress without being official. And joining is a simple click away (Troopmasters LOVE that they don't have to register boys!).

That seems like an awesome idea. Do they pay online as well?

Our Troop chartering process is quite intense, which is why we have almost as many Troops waiting to charter as chartered.

How does the chartering process work?

If someone wanted to start a troop in a new area, what is the process?

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

In the interest of transparency, I'll be glad to answer questions here. But I suspect you might not find me here long!

 

Some people think we are competitors.

Kind of, but we all want boys to advance and grow no matter what organization they choose. Friendly organizational competition will probably bring out the best in both of us. I wish Trail Life well.

I was looking on your website, and it looks like you all have a different take on uniforming. There's a t-shirt that is the basic field uniform, a polo for meetings and travel, and it sounds like something that will be more like the "Class A" shirt that I presume will be used for patches, etc. Are they keeping the uniform fairly minimalist, or will there be official trousers/shorts?

Boy Scouts of Canada went co-ed and opened membership to' date=' gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, atheists, and agnostics. Their membership crashed - down 63% If you argue it's not cause and effect, at least there was no increase in membership.[/i']

 

And the UK Scout Association has done much the same thing, and membership has been increasing since 2005.

So North Americans should avoid admitting atheists, homosexuals, and transvestites at all costs, although the British may get away with it. Thanks for the heads up, Merlyn.

Truly, there is much our species can learn from the Whiptail Lizard.

At least we don't have to keep them from penguins of the opposite sex like that unfortunate pair of bachelors in the Central Park Zoo.

If the figures cited are accurate, and I don't doubt they are, that's pretty impressive for a new organization. I'm curious to see whether that will level out, as I would have to guess there is a limited consumer population for outdoors-based youth leadership groups.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/unapologetically-biblical-alternative-to-boy-scouts-experiences-dramatic-growth-119714/

A recently created organization described by its leadership as an "unapologetically biblical" alternative to the Boy Scouts of America, has reported major growth since its launch at the start of the year.

Trail Life USA, an Orlando, Florida-based group for young males, has seen large numbers of troops be chartered over the past few months and expects hundreds more by the end of the year.

Mark Hancock, CEO of Trail Life USA, told The Christian Post that a troop generally consists of 35 to 40 members, with on average 11 being created every week.

"We have about 370 troops that are up and running, operating and holding meetings in more than 45 states. And then we have about 300 troops that are in the chartering process," said Hancock.

"We would expect all those troops to be up and running by the end of the year. We're chartering about 11 new troops a week."

Hancock also told CP that the model for Trail Life USA is one that "leans very heavily toward having churches as our chartering partners."

The Boston Globe just had an article on alternatives to BSA on the both ends of the political spectrum:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/05/31/new-groups-started-reaction-boy-scouts-debate-over-gays/QRVVUCmOXFKImKpX0QDf0I/story.html

Navigators formed, first in New York City, as a coed group that would welcome youths and adult leaders of “every race, creed, lifestyle, and ability.†Members promise to do their best “to create a world free of prejudice and ignorance.â€Â

“I think that groups like the Navigators, it’s clear that they value the scouting experience while they also value inclusion in a very big way,†said Zach Wahls, executive director of Scouts for Equality, a national group formed in 2012 to reverse the organization’s ban on gay members and leaders.

And there's Alcatraz, which is part of the National Park Service...

well it seems some sanity has been added to this thread by AZMike. I for one welcome our new southwestern overlord.

Well said, and your loyalty will be amply rewarded. If elected, I will immediately dissolve the electoral process and then appoint you the Duke of the Plains States.

I think keeping the discussion on "Faith in Action" is okay and a good idea, focusing on doctrinal issues (which may be weakly formed in young men anyway), probably not.

"I will reward absolute obedience with high-ranking crony jobs in my new regime"

Wait a minute! You're supposed to be DIFFERENT from the current system!

"Meet the New Boss,

The same as the Old Boss..."

You're now on the new order's watch list, Packsaddle.

How about this ? I will vote for you before I vote against you.

A qualified "yes," which is close enough for me. I'm up to 4. Word on the street is that Merlyn and I are the same guy, so that's 5 right there.

My campaign motto: "Not Insane!"

That's three votes for me. (I will, of course, vote for myself to help usher in the new Golden Era.) Thanks, comrades. Like Stalin, I will reward absolute obedience with high-ranking crony jobs in my new regime. I sense a groundswell of support.

With all the comments from people on the thread about various concerns and changes they would like to see in BSA policy, I was thinking about something...

Let's say the GSA decides that they want to expand and step up to do the things the BSA won't. They make some changes - some big, some small:

• They announce they will not exclude any youth on the basis of gender. Any boy can join the GSA. Perhaps to make it more attractive to boys, they rename themselves the "Scouts of America" or the GBSA (Girl and Boy Scouts of America). Or like the FFA, who no longer generally refer to themselves as the Future Farmers of America, they just use the acronym GSA and don't commonly spell it out.
  
• Scouts transferring over from the BSA can retain an equivalent rank in the GSA, and continue to wear any merit badges or other awards they earned in the BSA, and adult leaders can wear their knots and Wood Badge beads. Boys can also earn the Gold Medal within the GSA if they have not yet earned the Eagle rank.
  
• There is a version of the "local option" that many desire - units can set their own standards for membership and leadership, but girls would be allowed in every unit/
  
• There are no restrictions on LGBT or atheists, either as youths or adult leaders.
  
• Male adult leaders are allowed to participate in all GSA activities, with appropriate youth safety precautions.
  
• There is no need to profess faith in God, only a requirement to treat other people's religious beliefs with courtesy and respect.
  
• Flush with donations from cookie sales and the donations that begin to flood in from corporate and celebrity sponsors, the GSA begins buying up camp property and hiring professional outdoor educators to enhance their outdoor program. Former BSA leaders become an integral part of a revitalized outdoors program.
  

Many of these changes (possibly not all) would be seen as desirable to some who regularly post on this board.

It's just a thought experiment, but I'd be interested in hearing your opinions:

• How many of you would be interested in transferring over from the BSA?
  
• I tried to cover some responses to many of the concerns and issues that are frequently raised on this site. Obviously, not all of these would be equally agreeable to everyone - some may want a co-ed environment or allow LGBT leaders, but not want atheists, or vice versa. Would you be willing to cross over if a majority of your concerns were addressed, even if all of them could not be?
  
• Which organization do you think would be less institutionally resistant to the kinds of changes outlined above - the GSA or the BSA? If the GSA, do you think it would be easier to change the GSA to address your concerns rather than trying to change the BSA? If not, why? If so, are you trying to make such changes within the GSA?
  
• Is it more important to you to change the BSA to fit your image of how the organization should be, or to find a more congenial home for your scouts and/or yourself?
  

If I were BSA president....?

Combine the 3 Citizenship MBs required for Eagle into 1 badge - "Citizenship" - and add two outdoors badges (perhaps Wilderness Survival and Pioneering) as requirements for Eagle to replace the 2 eliminated ones. Make BSA stuff less about going back to the school classroom and more about the outdoors.

Get in front of the narrative when the BSA is attacked. When the Disney Corporation denies its employees the opportunity to contribute their volunteer work hours to the BSA, fire back. Post an online petition to the Disney Corporation demanding that they stop discriminating against the youth of America, especially the underserved minority and disabled youths. Recruit a phalanx of troops in full uniform to march to the Disney HQ in Burbank and ask to present the signed petition to the CEO, and invite the media. If he refuses to come out and meet with them, hold a 24 hour vigil where Scouts take turns reading a list of all the community projects on the steps of their HQ. Make sure the media is there. Send an email to all Scout families asking them to consider whether they want to spend their hard-earned dollars on Disney merchandise and theme parks, and invite them to email or snail-mail Disney to tell them that they won't spend a dime until they rescind their decision, and preferably fire whichever wonk in their HR department who came up with the lamebrained policy. Issue a press statement asking Disney if they plan to stop distribution (and earnings) from "Follow Me Boys." If all else fails, frequently remind the media and press of Walt's own racist, anti-homosexual, and antisemitic proclivities. Bring up "Song of the South" whenever possible. If you know you're going under, make sure to drag your opponent down with you. (Okay, maybe not the last option.) (Unless they force our hand.)

Oderint, dum metuant. There are organizations with whom people do not generally mess, for fear of backlash - the Teamsters Union, the Marine Corps, and certain religious sects known for their harsh reactions to criticism. Elect me as President of the BSA, and I will add the BSA to that list!!!

Fair enough, I didn't see or remember the ban on citing polls in the OP. My apologies.

To get back to the OP, "So, the subject is: How do I have an invocation at a troop meeting that isn't painfully generic on the one hand and completely exclusionary of minorities on the other? This is compounded by the fact that the prayers I do see at scouting events, even those that are “non denominational,†tend to be completely foreign to me. That's because they are usually ad-hoc and I can't join in. Is there a Philmont Grace style of prayers? Dcsimmons suggested taking turns doing it right among the different faiths. Has anyone gotten that to work?

Just spitballin' here, but is a formal invocation the best time to for a scout to explore his own faith tradition, and to help him find the tools to hold other people's faiths as valuable and worthy of respect? (Which I say is the end goal of this aspect of Scouting.)

Some of the best advice I received as a new father was to try to engage my son on sensitive issues while performing a neutral activity - while doing yard work together, or whittling together, or hiking. Some therapists follow the "peripatetic" model, of doing counseling while walking at a brisk pace with their client. A lot of us has found this works. Rather than using the convocation, perhaps it would be helpful to explore those two issues at other, less formal times. If you can catch a boy at the right time, they love to talk, and they like to share their opinion and usually appreciate the chance to talk about things that are important to them, if they can do it in an environment where they know their opinions will be taken seriously. Campfires seem to be a good time to do this.

For instance, our troop has done service and Eagle projects that have benefitted a wide variety of faith groups - our CO, a storefront nondenominational ministry in an economically depressed area, a religious mission that helps detained illegal immigrants' kids, and others. Rather than focusing too much on which prayers we use, perhaps while having pizza after the event, or sitting around the campfire in a quiet moment at the monthly campout after the project, or driving home from a campout. we could lead them into reflecting on what they learned from working for a different religious group:

• "You met Pastor Tim and his wife Sarah, who is also a pastor, when we built that play area in the backyard of their mission for the neighborhood kids that met there. The parish where we meet has a religious tradition where the priests remain celibate, but some deacons can be married. What do you think would be the hardest part of running a ministry with your wife as a pastoral partner? What would be the hardest part of not being able to marry? Do you think there would be some advantages in being married, or not being married as a pastor? What do you think the problems a woman who is married to a pastor would face? How about the children of a pastor? (if you have scouts who are the sons of a religious leader, ask them to talk about the parts that are good and the parts that can be difficult.)
  
• "We put in a lot of work on renovating the kitchen and dining area for the mission. Their goal is to help kids who aren't in the country legally and are separated from their parents. Most religions put emphasis on helping those who need it most as part of their faith. I'd be interested in hearing from all of you, and this might even help some of you in selecting an Eagle project. Who do you think are the people most in need of help in today's world? If you could pick any group of people to help, who would pick? What kind of project would you pick to try to help them? What would be the biggest hurdles you would face in carrying that out? How would that project help you to live out the mandate of your own particular faith?"
  

St. Francis of Assisi said we should preach all the time, using words only when necessary. Scouts do an enormous amount of good in their community, which is a way of living out their faith in a small-community setting. that not every boy gets to experience. Using the lessons learned and the experiences they witness as a way to explore religious and moral values in a supportive way may be one of the best venues to explore faith in a way that doesn't focus on (potentially divisive) doctrinal issues, but focus on shared religious values.

What do you think?

And if you like dueling Pew survey citing, this shows that out of the 5% of respondents who said they do NOT believe in "god or a universal spirit", 14% of them said they were some flavor of Christian:

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/02/n...lves-atheists/

 

And if you think it's unlikely that 10% wouldn't know the definitions of words, how about 26% of Americans not knowing that the earth goes around the sun?

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...th-survey-says

How is that relevant?

The level of pseudo-scientific knowledge is high in both the religious and secular camps, and in both the liberal and conservative groupings of Americans

Under the terms of service for this thread' date=' I have to avoid insulting other groups, and am obliged to say that I can't agree with your contention that over a tenth of people who identify as atheists are ignorant of basic English vocabulary.[/i']

 

If they actually call themselves atheists yet believe one or more gods exist, then they simply do not know what words mean. However, I've pointed out other problems with such surveys so this isn't necessarily what's going on.

 

Happy to give you the cite, Merlyn. You may have been looking at a different Pew survey than this one,

 

Nope, it says exactly what I mentioned -- here's a direct quote from your link: Indeed, one-in-five people who identify themselves as atheist (21%) and a majority of those who identify themselves as agnostic (55%) express a belief in God or a universal spirit.

See below.

I was incorrect when I said about 10% of Atheists believe in God. It's actually about twice that, or 1/5 of all atheists. Wow.

No, you can't change the response from "belief in God or a universal spirit" to "belief in God". That isn't what it says.

See page 5. It breaks the respondents down by those who believe in God and those who beleive in an impersonal force. Words have meanings, as you have pointed out, Merlyn.

It could be that there are a lot of people who are very unsure of what they believe,

Or what words mean. Or a combination. Or other factors, like being asked about "God or a universal spirit" instead of just "god".

It breaks down belief exactly as I said, Merlyn: 21% of atheists said they believed in God. That is further broken down into the 6% of atheists who believe in a "personal God," the 12% of atheists who believe in an "impersonal force," and the remaining undecided. So, 6% of atheists believe in a Sky Daddy (to use the usual term of abuse), the others in the survey are apparently deists.

That's not unusual. Several prominent atheists have moved over into the deist camp.

Over a tenth of the people who self-identify as atheists even say they believe in God and an afterlife. That's screwy' date=' I know, but there it is. There is a natural human pull towards religion.[/i']

 

MERLYN: I'd say there's a natural human pull to not know what words mean.

Under the terms of service for this thread, I have to avoid insulting other groups, and am obliged to say that I can't agree with your contention that over a tenth of people who identify as atheists are ignorant of basic English vocabulary.

AZMIKE: Someone could, I guess, say they were an atheist, but that they still believe in God (again, about a tenth of atheists do).

 

MERLYN: I have never seen an actual cite for that; what I HAVE seen are surveys that either don't use just the word "god" (Pew used "god or a universal spirit", which is NOT the same as just asking if a person believes in "god"), or even worse, a survey that assumes lack of religion = atheism.

Happy to give you the cite, Merlyn. You may have been looking at a different Pew survey than this one, which breaks down the religious and non-religious categories quite well, and doesn't conflate the two concepts as the survey you are referencing did: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...study-full.pdf. The survey was based on about 35,000 American adults

It's useful reading for the broader purposes of this thread, as it illustrates the broad range of opinion within specific denominations: The lack of dogmatism in American religion may well reflect the great diversity of religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the U.S. For example, while more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there is considerable variation in the nature and certainty of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. And while roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of God’s existence, more than one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.

This is interesting, in light of what we have been discussing. I was incorrect when I said about 10% of Atheists believe in God. It's actually about twice that, or 1/5 of all atheists. Wow.

It could be that, as Merlyn suggests, those are just people who don't know what "atheist" means and aren't "real" atheists. But that brings up a bigger question: are the ranks of atheists that show up in general surveys, such as Gallup, overinflated because a fifth of self-identified atheists are terminally confused? There are apparently a lot fewer "real" atheists out there than the surveys show.

Anyway, on the "Conception of God":

Among Americans in total, 92% believe in God; of that net figure, 60% believe in a personal God, 25% in an impersonal force, 7% believe in some other conception of God or don't know.

Among Jews in total, 83% believe in God; of that net figure, 25% believe in a personal God, 50% in an impersonal force, 8% believe in some other conception of God or don't know.

Among Buddhists in total, 75% believe in God; of that net figure, 20% believe in a personal God, 45% in an impersonal force, 10% believe in some other conception of God or don't know. Given all the talk on here, I was frankly surprised to see the stats as high as they are.

Pew broke down "Religious Unaffiliated" into Atheist, Agnostic, Secular Unaffiliated, and Religious Unaffiliated, which seems a reasonable breakdown to me, Merlyn.

Among Atheists, 21% believe in God (!!!!); of that net figure, 6% believe in a personal God (Double !!!!!!!), 12% in an impersonal force, 13% believe in some other conception of God or don't know.

Among Agnostics in total, 55% believe in God; (What th- ?) of that net figure, 14% believe in a personal God, 36% in an impersonal force, 5% believe in some other conception of God or don't know. Actually, that final 5%, or a fraction of it, are apparently the only "real" agnostics in the poll, as everyone else seems to have a pretty firm opinion.

Among the Secular Unaffiliated in total, 66% believe in God; of that net figure, 20% believe in a personal God, 40% in an impersonal force, 7% believe in some other conception of God or don't know.

Among the Religious Unaffiliated in total, 94% believe in God; of that net figure, 49% believe in a personal God, 35% in an impersonal force, 9% believe in some other conception of God or don't know. It's interesting that among the group that apparently don't belong to an organized religion, there is a higher belief in God

Of the 21% of atheists who believe in God ("or a Universal Spirit," so this may have been the figure Merlyn was thinking of), 8% are absolutely certain there is a God, 13% are less certain.

12% of atheists believe in Heaven, but only 10% believe in Hell. I'm not sure what to make of that. 36% of Buddhists believe in Heaven, and 26% in Hell. I'm not sure what to make of that, either. In every group, more people believe in Heaven than Hell. So perhaps we are a nation of optimists.

It could be that there are a lot of people who are very unsure of what they believe, and describe themselves as "Buddhist" because they feel it shows non-judgmentalism or something. (I've had young people who describe themselves as Buddhists describe some very non-Buddhist beliefs to me.) They may have no conception of what Buddhism actually entails. There is also a very broad range of belief within Buddhism. I still have no idea why so many self-identified atheists gave the responses they did. Maybe they are close readers of Blaise Pascal.

It's a very in-depth survey, and contains some real surprises whatever your beliefs or lack of same. I'd recommend it to everyone on this thread.

Just my opinion on how religion might best be interpreted for those religions who don't believe in a personal God, Merlyn. I think about such things.

"The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion."

Ultimately, if a movement, such as Buddhism considers itself a religion, and has a conception of "God" sufficient for youths who are members of that movement to feel comfortable joining, and if adult members participate in a religious committee to support Scouting and award religious medals - who am I to say otherwise?

Now, there are atheist churches, however you feel about them, and the atheist (or humanist, or secular, or whatever) movement now has chaplains and services and psalms and clergy and suchlike. Over a tenth of the people who self-identify as atheists even say they believe in God and an afterlife. That's screwy, I know, but there it is. There is a natural human pull towards religion.

Someone could, I guess, say they were an atheist, but that they still believe in God (again, about a tenth of atheists do). They could get in, even if they don't fit your puritanical, judgmental, uptight definition of "atheist." (It's just, like, a label, man.)

And, not every atheist is a materialist reductionist, and there are real atheists (that is, people who don't believe in God) who nevertheless believe in reincarnation and crystal energy and ghosts and angels and all sorts of spiritual things.

Personally, if such a New Age atheist decided that his idiosyncratic belief in the Vibratory Energy of the Fifth Integral was equivalent to a belief in God, and he was willing to join the BSA on that basis...I would probably be okay with that. It would make for some interesting conversations around the campfire late at night, if nothing else.

But if an atheist honestly can't say that he has some conception of a Higher Power, or even a Transcendent Moral System (a la Karma) that they feel is a conception of "God"...then you don't fit the membership requirements. Nothing against you, and we appreciate your honesty and integrity. We like you, but only as a friend.

I don't want to speak for them, but Buddhists involved in scouting seem to feel that their conception of a Higher Power (such as Karma or the 8-fold path) is sufficiently close to the "God" in the Statement of Religious Principle that they are comfortable being in Scouts. I do not believe that every, or even any, Buddhist involved in Scouting is a liar. I doubt you think that either.

Well, again I don't believe in Karma. By the rules of this thread, however, I won't go into my philosophical or theological reasons . As I was asked, I gave the reasons I think the Buddhist conception of Karma/Kamma supports the argument for a transcendent objective moral system, and a supernatural (or, hypermundane) view of reality that I think would keep them in BSA as a "religion" in a way that other practices devoted solely to personal perfection, such as the Silva Meditation Method or EST or a practice of Zen meditation divorced from a religious perspective, wouldn't. I'm sure that some Buddhists would agree on my conclusions, and some wouldn't.

 

If that is true, wouldn't it also mean that mankind can come up with objective moral standards on our own, without help from God?

 

(I think that question may be within the rules that were originally established for this thread (and which I ostensibly am supposed to be enforcing, although I actually only enforce the rules prescribed by Terry, which is a very short list), but without reading back five pages, I am not sure. It seems sufficiently philosophical that it probably does not get into the subjects that MattR was trying to avoid.)

Under a Buddhist perspective? Probably not, although not all Buddhists believe in God or gods. I doubt that a Buddhist would argue that (to use the usual metric for total evil) an unrepentant Nazi officer would be excused for his behavior in his next phase of existence because his culture deemed what he did as objectively good, or because he thought he was doing the right thing. In the absence of a grounded moral standard that transcends humanity, human moral codes become merely aesthetic choices.

This is implicitly recognized in most arguments on the objectivity of moral codes. If a particularly horrible example of behavior that is condoned by human cultures, such as genocide or infanticide is brought up, the usual response from someone arguing that there can be an "objective" human based moral code is that, "Of course that's wrong! I don't need any outside source to tell me that!" Well, then what is the source of that recognition, and why is a deviant human culture's behavior recognized as "wrong?"

Mere popularity doesn't work. The Nazis were voted into power by a large majority. Utilitarianism doesn't work. The majority of people involved in a gang rape think it benefits them. Even a limp application of the "Golden Rule" isn't enough - a rapist would probably say that he wishes his victim would do to him what he wants to do to her or him. Simple intuition is inherently untrustworthy.

So - you would probably have to Ask a Buddhist , but Buddhism does have a moral code, and it would seem to be something other than the arbitrary choices made by the Buddha as a man, so I would argue that it is objective.

Would the Karmic mechanism, whatever that is, recognize an "objective" man-created moral standard that is in radical contradiction to whatever standards previously applied throughout time? Is Karma customer-based? (I'm not trying to be flippant here or denigrate those who believe in Karma.) So if a majority of humans decided, or even if ALL humans somehow decided that it would now be okay to slowly torture those born with birth defects to death, that would be, if not objective, at least a unanimous decision that would be in contradiction to the Buddhist laws of Right Behavior (as well as the Tao, the Quran, and the Bible). Would the Karmic Wheel adapt to that new human created, allegedly "objective" moral system and now reward such previously forbidden behavior? I would guess that most Buddhists would say no. (The one I just asked said absolutely not.)

Just a thought experiment to explore your question. What do you think?

I'm not a Buddhist or an expert by any means either, but Karma would probably be considered as such. It is neither matter nor energy and does not fit a materialist/reductionist view of the universe, and so could probably be considered as transcendent. While it can be argued that it is simply a recognition of spiritual causality, a cause, or a process, it affects the process of reincarnation and rebirth in some way. As Karma is affected by and in some fashion recognizes morally good and morally evil acts, it would seem to encompass objective moral standards.

Just to add' date=' while membership may be up in Utah, we just lost an entire council here in New Jersey. And I don't think that's the end of it. I don't think it is going to make the surrounding districts and councils, which have absorbed the units from the Central New Jersey Council, any healthier financially. If more councils collapse, I see no reason to believe that the remaining councils will be able to absorb what's left. I am not talking about councils merging in an orderly way, with a plan for how to manage a larger number of units and a wider geographic area. What seems to have happened here is simply chaos, and I am afraid that what will follow is even greater chaos.[/quote']

 

So what's driving that?

As it is the official youth activity of LDS, that is probably due to the increase in Mormon evangelization and conversion, as the article notes.

It wasn't you. It was le Voyageur and it's possible that I turned up the 'sensitivity' too much on that one but he seemed to diminish that particular faith on the basis of the small number of followers, called it a UFO cult, and worst of all, associated it with Tom Cruise.

 

Edit: le Voyageur, hope you'll be back. I very much appreciate anything you can add on Buddhism. I like what I've read so far.

And in the interest of fairness, I should say that I was apparently mistaken on whether Scientologists believe in God. I based that on the statements of a Scientologist co-worker, who told me they didn't. Doing some Internet research, I find that their official website says they do, (I think), or that leave it up to the individual - like Buddhism, I suspect they don't find it relevant to their interests. Their official website says they do have a "concept of God" - "In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamicâ€â€the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. As the Eighth Dynamic, the Scientology concept of God rests at the very apex of universal survival."

I truthfully don't know what that means, but according to them, "Unlike religions with Judeo-Christian origins, the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one’s level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one’s relationship to the Supreme Being."