Jump to content

packsaddle

Moderators
  • Content Count

    9103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by packsaddle

  1. littlebillie, the Hebrew calendar is currently in the year 5763. Not bad!
  2. DeMann, The answers to most of your questions inevitably will be conjecture based on the best evidence or knowledge in hand at the time the conjecture is made. There is a book, "Vital Dust" by Christian DeDuve that provides, in my mind, the best single effort to bring all the elements into a common framework. The author is a Nobel Prize winner so I have to admit he probably did a better job than I could. If I suggested a specific answer, say, that the first organism had the same base pairing as all life on earth (and this isn't very controversial), it could form the basis for a long discuss
  3. Freud argued that ignorance is a poor basis for belief. ScoutParent's statements could be used to support an argument that ignorance is the ONLY basis. Nevertheless, I find quaint sympathy with some of ScoutParent's shrill prose. There are individuals in all walks of life, science included, that have such strong interest in certain ideas that they take on what might seem to be a religious belief. If this applies to persons who are interested in evolution, for example, ScoutParent is correct in identifying such as a source of weakness. This weakness cuts both ways, though, and it also applies t
  4. "Apropos of the origin of man I see no ground at present for pinning my faith to one theory or another. My purpose in mentioning the matter was simply that I might have an occasion of claiming my right to follow withersoever Science should lead and over and through whatever dares to stand in the way. After all it is as respectable to be modified monkey as modified dirt." T.H. Huxley, January 30, 1859 This argument has been argued in other forums, obviously for a long time. I want to reassure DeMann that any conflict between faith and science is needless. Faith clearly does not rely on
  5. This is an interesting question. My troop works under the by-laws of the chartering organization, a church in our case, but now I am not so sure it is the best way to proceed. I was under the impression that the chartering organization took legal and financial responsibility for their scout units. Am I wrong?
  6. hippychik42, My deepest sympathies. The kind of behavior you described fits neither the Oath nor the Law. Working for change or for reform within any system is tricky and requires great care...and sometimes you really have to hold your nose. You evidently touched a tripwire. However, to use an analogy to John Muir, soaked with rain and covered with dirt, you are now completely free to pursue this any way you see fit. BSA may have erred in that they now have no leverage over you whatsoever. However, from what you describe, there may have been actual crimes committed and this possibility should
  7. Our troop does something similar. However, we try to schedule a parallel campout at the same time and place as the Pack family campouts. Then we invite the Pack to locate their Webelos adjacent to the Troop and we work with them to introduce the patrol method. In the end the Cubs usually have a great time picking on the Boys and there are lots of laughs while learning the ropes, so to speak. The younger Cubs, who are sort of like free-range chickens (eating from all sources), infiltrate the whole process and it is a joy to watch. It is also a good lesson for the older boys who are not yet in o
  8. ScoutParent, Simple, the problem would still be there. It is preferable to revisit what I believe are very good stated ideals...and then walk the walk.
  9. Zorn: "BSA is not a government entity and does not have to be tolerant of dissent." I stand corrected. I thought the Constitution applied to things outside government. I thought that an organization chartered by Congress would be an exemplary advocate for constitutional rights. I was wrong. The same Supreme Court that you complain about agrees with you on this. However.. For adults to exclude each other or practice hateful behavior toward each other is our reality and I consider that sad enough. For those adults to be willing to hurt innocent boys, even a little, just because they want s
  10. Merlyn, Yes I have seen the Nature survey but I am speaking from more of a personal view in that every atheist with whom I have discussed these things seemed to be quite firm in their knowledge. Really, in order to absolutely reject something, whether existence of God or something less, requires strong conviction. I would think this true for any absolute position held by thoughtful persons. However, I would tend to agree with the inflated percentage of agnostics if it includes persons who are simply not sure, clearly not the same thing though. Remember, the disciple Thomas also was not sure an
  11. Zorn, your statements must be answered. I have tried to understand the source of such views but long discussions with my friends who say similar things have never been very satisfying. Without dignifying the tone of your comments and assuming the best, I suggest you refer to a book by Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" (ISBN: 0393317552), for reasonably objective treatment of topics close to your views. If your views are simply based in prejudice (as some of my friends freely admit), the exercise will do no harm. Otherwise it could be of some benefit. TJ
  12. Merlyn, One comment you made earlier about atheism and scientists was troubling. While I think I understand your intent, the scientist at best tries to practice a disciplined skepticism. They may invent or adopt an idea but then try their best to disprove it through rational or empirical tests called experiments. If they fail, they then qualify the idea saying that it is conditionally accepted, until good evidence to the contrary is found. As you might imagine, lawyers hate to put good scientists on the witness stand. Some persons believe that if applied to matters of faith, this approach i
  13. tjhammer, ahem, it is still the same amendment(#1). BSA is in conflict with this amendment. There are individual rights and rights that are exercised collectively as groups, sometimes exactly the same rights. Corporations have rights similar to those of individuals and the examples go on. In some sense, because a group has a different set of abilities from an individual, there are some differences in rights that are granted to them. But the basics (like speech) are still the same, good thing too. Zorn, local governments around here sponsor Scottish Highlander days and pour serious money into
  14. "Or if the memorial was initiated by referendum, I think it would even be appropriate for the township to make the purchase." In my community, if such referendum passed and public money was proposed for any religious display specific to one faith (the one mentioned before was a manger scene), the minorities would successfully argue that the local government was endorsing that faith. Their argument would be that the majority, by virtue of larger population size, simply rolled over all the minority faiths. They would win their case. However, if any of the faiths wanted to use the local school
  15. At the risk of making things worse, I remind everyone that BSA does exclude, and for nothing more than exercise of the first amendment right of free expression. That being the case, I suppose it is scoutlike to act likewise.
  16. Rocky and Bullwinkle, of course! I used to catch their reruns between classes. Rooster7 has another nice response and I support his outlook on this. In response to an earlier comment, I DO know some Jews and Moslems who are offended by Nativity Scenes on courthouse lawns, for example. My Buddhist and Hindu friends haven't said anything to me about it. They understand private displays on private lawns but the public buildings like local schools sadden them. But they, being small minorities where I live, bite their tongues in resignation. I think the old phrase, still applicable, is: "They know
  17. ScoutParent, Always a pleasure. (Heavy sigh) Oh well, I guess I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do. But I try to speak up when I have something to say and no one has ever thought that I am bigotted or closed-minded. I think the reason may be that I am willing to listen to the other side and if I see merit to an argument, I try to incorporate the logic of that argument into my view. I think this is preferable to mindlessly clinging to views that I know have less merit. Or to put it differently, how can I improve my ideas if I never put them to the test or if I never allow other
  18. ScoutParent, Thanks, I stand corrected. You saved me from having to wade through old messages. I often daydream during 20-minute prayers, too. Oops, I probably wasn't supposed to admit that. But don't you relish the opportunity to hear the other side and get your chance to present your best argument in opposition? Doesn't Merlyn's presence here represent the very essence of the strength of our system? I think he has good arguments to make and he articulates them well. Besides, if our logic can't stand such scrutiny, then we are hardly strengthened by closing the door and hiding in the clo
  19. Merlyn and Everyone, I think I am observing a free exercise of religious expression. We are obviously not being denied this right. I agree with Merlyns point that no-one, neither individuals nor governments, should dictate to anyone, through statute or tradition, what their beliefs must be. We do have public religious expression. People freely decide every day to congregate and form new churches or not to do so, to dissolve old ones, to stand in public and shout their convictions if they choose to, and to move from faith to faith as their personal interests direct them. And I do not believe
  20. Rooster7, great reply! But I am not sure what you mean by 'the left'...in another place or time it could mean the opposite of what you mean, if you know what I mean. Venturer2002, I want to inform you that slavery and deceit in any form are wrong...do you really doubt this? I really can't accept that they are good under any circumstance and I don't understand why anyone would advocate such. Jefferson's intent seems clear to me, preserve as much individual liberty as possible while obeying the two great commandments (St. Mark 12:30-31) as well as the golden rule. That he formed his ideas dur
  21. I agree with OGE and Bob about this. The requirements are objective where specific activities must be completed. They are subjective (subject to personal judgement) where such things as spirit are concerned. Boys are not all the same and CAN'T be expected to adhere to the same standard of 'spirit' although they CAN all be expected to know how to tie a square knot. To state this a little differently, a boy who begins scouting at a high level of spirit can progress nicely with little or no increase in spirit. Another boy who begins with little or no spirit can greatly improve without matching th
  22. Acco40, Don't give the media too much credit. They merely choose the information to present...we form our own images based on that information. And those images are as diverse as we are. Just look at all the arguments in this thread! I was in China a couple of years ago and in spite of the best efforts of the central government, I observed widespread capitalism and efforts at individual expression (also greed and the other stuff that haunts humanity). And remember, we troop leaders also impose discipline on our troops as well, don't we? OK,...we TRY to impose discipline on our troops. OK,...we
  23. NJCubscouter, I agree. Also, ACCO40, I suspect that Jesus (having advised his disciples to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) would probably shrug off such an oath as unimportant. And I would agree. Oaths of allegiance are as personal as prayers...one person viewing it as personally profound, another as profane, another merely with disinterest. There is no way to assess what an idea really means to a person except through their actions, not their words. This situation has some relation to the hypocrits who try to 'hedge their bets' by attending church and participating in religious rit
  24. BubbaBear, Uuuhhhhh....thanks, ...I think. Packsaddle
  25. BubbaBear and CubsRgr8, Some more followup. I would like to think that if we learn to live together in acceptance of our differences as children, then we will be able to do the same later as adults. My experience has shown this to be possible. Actually I kind of enjoy the differences. Prejudice and intolerance seem to be learned early, almost inherited. By the way, I took a photo of a nearby American Flag (in reference to the 'indivisible' part of the pledge). If there is some way to post it I will. The file is 60K, not too large. Packsaddle
×
×
  • Create New...