Merlyn_LeRoy

Regardless of it's origin, the 10 Commandments pretty much sum up the minimum requirements for civilization.  The only time problems arise is when one can trace back to one of these commandments and it not being adhered to.

I disagree.  The 10 commandments don't say anything to oppose slavery, and rape is only covered because women were considered property.

...Once atheist (man) becomes the root source of the BSA values of behavior, it can no longer be a values program because man doesn't have a behavior source of reference.

Your assertion is nonsense; it wouldn't be a theistic source, but that is not the same as "no longer being a values program".

Of course a moral code can be derived separate from religion. If religious moral code, or a code derived from an outside source of supreme power, i.e. God/god, then the onus of judgement is from that source.

No, the onus of judgement is from the people who claim to speak for that god, which is still just people.

As a community, the person adheres to the code out of respect and awareness of that supreme power as does everyone else that believes in that power.

Which is why e.g. Christians agree with each other on every aspect of morality.

On the other hand if there is no supreme power to direct, guide, or answer to, then the individual needs only to create a moral code that best works out for them.  As situations arise that require a moral choice, the non-supreme being person can alter their moral code according to what is in their best interest at the time because any direction, guiding or answering to is to oneself's own best interest.  It appears that they have a moral code and they do, but they answer only to themselves.

While in contrast, people who follow god-given morals never change these morals, which is why slavery is still moral.

This is where I was eventually going. As long as scouting is held accountable to a higher power, then man cannot be the final definition of scout like behavior. Humans sadly are fickle in justifying their behavior and when we submit to man being the final definition of scout like behavior

What's more fickle than "slavery is moral" changing to "slavery is immoral"?  The Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the god-given morality of slavery, but, somehow, their god did a 180 on that.

As I've pointed out many times before, god-given morality is arbitrary, since people believe in different gods with different morals.  Is slavery moral?  Polygamy?  Gay marriage?  The answers change depending on what god people believe in.  So how can that settle on what "scout like behavior" means?  Was being gay "unscoutlike" a couple years ago?

 If someone, or in the case of a theism, something else, is making the judgments of right or wrong our actions might be different than one who answers only to themselves.  Sure that individual may do things in a certain way to avoid the wrath of others but is basically no concerned about any theistic involvement and if they feel they could get away with it, then it's an okay thing for them to do. 

This is a typical theist lie against atheists, which I take to mean the speaker has no genuine morals if they didn't believe in an invisible enforcer.  That's why I consider such people to be possible sociopaths, as they appear to lack all empathy.

As represented by the atheist reply, humans without some kind of theist direction don't play well together.

 

Barry

So is that a "yes"?  Your reply suggest you are completely unfamiliar with human empathy.  That would make you a sociopath.

How would he know? What is he measuring morality against? When an atheist says he is moral, what standards is he comparing himself against?

 

Other humans.  Are you a sociopath?

There is room for Hindu, Buddhist, and even Shinto.  If there's room for that, the DRP covers a darn broad tent.

 

There is no room for non-theism or a-theism.

If you exclude non-theists/atheists, you are excluding some Buddhists, at the very least.

The Scouting Association of the UK admits atheists.

Please NJ, give me a list of these kids that were kicked out. Shesh, talk about revisionist history. As much as you want to paint the BSA as this bad program, it was one of the most inclusive organizations for kids. Ironically less kids today will participate than during the bad years you like to impress on everyone.

I will.

Claude Taylor (1973)

Paul Trout (1985; reinstated after public outcry)

Mark Welsh (1991; refused membership)

William and Michael Randall (1991; readmitted during legal suit)

"it was one of the most inclusive organizations for kids"

No, most organizations for kids were more inclusive, by simply not excluding some kids on the basis of religion.

I wonder if they will discuss scouting?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34109681

http://www.nbc.com/running-wild-with-bear-grylls

 

Oh and Mr. President, a Scout Salute for renaming Mount McKinley to Mount Denali.

Could be; Grylls was all in favor of admitting atheists in the UK, and that almost certainly helped in bringing the change:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/286003/Bear-Grylls-wants-Scouts-to-be-open-to-the-non-religious

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/08/bear-grylls-keeping-the-faith-in-scouting-4139068/

Are you talking Fat Tuesday in the CBD? Or are you talking ANY Mardi Gras parade? Because 95% of the crewes and parades are pretty darn tame. It's Fat Tuesday and specific parades that are the more flamboyant ones.

 

I haven't been to any gay pride parades so I cannot say whether they are mostly like Barry says or not. But Mardi Gras is a bad example if you are comparing all of the parades in total versus just Rex or Endymion or Zulu or a specific one.

Hey, if Barry wants to judge all gays by whomever offends him the most in a gay parade, I'll do the same for straights using Mardi Gras.

The fact that you objected shows how stupid it is to do either one.

You only have to see a gay pride parade to understand that is a sexual issue.

And Mardi Gras shows that having straight male leaders is a sexual issue.

When the government tries to force a religious community to do a religious marriage for someone they do not deem appropriate is where the government needs to seriously mind it's own business and butt out.  

Luckily the government has never done this.

If they lose half of the churches, but get back into half of the schools; BSA comes out ahead.

They can't.  Public schools can't charter BSA units that don't allow atheists.  Period.

And if you're just talking about meeting space, they already have the same access as any other group.

WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America recognizes the sincere religious beliefs and freedoms of religious chartered organizations and will not require any religious chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs;

 

Unitarian-Universalists might disagree that the BSA does this. 

Look, it's the English language and it's pretty clear. The word God refers to THE God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The word god refers to any other deity other groups see as their supreme beings. If BSA just meant any old god they would have used the lower case version.

So you ARE saying only believers of the Abrahamic god are allowed as members.  Even though the BSA says differently.

So that means that Trail Life was founded because they were upset that the BSA was not going to continue to make youths lie about who they are?  That Trail Life will accept gay youth as long as they stay in the closet and keep lying to people?  Hmmm - that sounds even worse than changing their minds. 

Atheists, too.  Maybe they could conduct excursions to Potemkin villages.

I'm saying what I said. It was pretty clear. I will repeat.

 

If BSA did not mean the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims, then they should not have used the capitalized word God. If they meant just any old god or notion of a higher being not God, then they should use the lower case word god....or even gods.

So you're saying the BSA is lying when they elsewhere state that followers of non-Abrahamic gods can be members?

Well I'm not a nominalist so I'll stick to my definition.

As long as you realize that doesn't apply to anyone but yourself.

When you capitalize the word, the common understanding is that you are referring to the Christian, Muslim and Jewish God. When you use lower case letters you are referring to other gods people might believe in. So if BSA capitalizes the word they are using the former reference, not the latter. If they mean to change their intended meaning in "duty to God" they might want to change their capitalization. 

So, you're saying anyone who doesn't follow the Abrahamic god can't be in the BSA?

Certainly they exist, but their gods don't -- or if they do, they are not what one would ordinarily think of as gods.

That's not what YOU think of as gods, but they aren't you, obviously.  And if you're trying to define a word like "god", which is used very differently by different people, giving only one definition that doesn't fit everyone isn't very useful.

By the way, your god doesn't exist, either.  neener, neener.

There aren't any others.

So Hindus don't exist in your world?  Wiccans?  Or any other people who worship very different gods from yours?

OK, that's the Abrahamic god, what about some of the others?

BSA can explain away their use of the word God all they want. The known world describes God as this.

 

No, merriam-webster.com describes the word "god" as that, and it's a particularly terrible one, since "gods" simply redirects to the singular definition, which doesn't even make sense for the first definition.

So, you aren't "allowed" to validate their choice, but you're whining that they might not validate your choice?  I'll get my tiniest violin.