ScoutParent

A law or rule sanctioning such a thing is a "law respecting establishment of religion." The Supreme Court isn't always right, but they are right on this.

What did you base your decision that they are right about this on? How do you reconcile this decision with the right to exercise clause?

"Zorn, lets say I agree with you, what is the remedy?"

Respect for the "right to exercise" clause as well as the "establishment clause", "freedom of speech" being observed by all groups. People of all religious faiths standing up for God. Teaching our children that peer pressure exists and how to stand for their beliefs with pride.

Merlyn,

What's your objection to government refunding school tax dollars to parents who chose not to use the government "atheist" schools in favor of private schools that fit more closely with their personal ideals?

Further, your interpretation of the basis for the findings on the cases determining the constitutionality of teaching evolution and Creation as theories of evolution was inaccurate and misleading.

What's your objection to groups having fellowship with people of similiar beliefs? Why don't you start some atheist organizations with the purported millions rather than disrupting?

"When the court has addressed this issue, they found that teaching creationism is not teaching science, but just teaching religion masquerading as science. They also found that the government's interest in teaching *real* science to students is a compelling state interest that is not being done to purposely ridicule or subvert students' religious views, which makes it quite legal for public schools to teach subjects that may, incidentally, contradict various religious teachings."

Amazing how you can write that and find nothing wrong with it but continue to find objection to the word God in the pledge. The word God is not added to ridicule your nonbelief; it's just that there is a compelling state interest to continue to encourage it's usage.

As I wrote earlier:

"Merlyn, as it stands now the public school system is reduced to teaching in totally secular terms, completely unfair to the nation's majority that have religious beliefs. We'll use your example of evolution, by ignoring creation, you are giving credence to the theory of evolution. Evolution is a direct contradition to many religious beliefs. Schools have no problem teaching ideas from naturalists and humanists so yes, they definitely should add ideas from other perspectives. A better solution yet would be for atheist organizations to stop fighting school vouchers so parents could send their children to the schools of their choice. What is your objection to each individual family choosing where to send their child? Certainly it isn't using tax dollars to promote religion if individuals have a choice. The information from nonbelieving groups would have you believe is that religious schools will indoctrinate and not teach. Teaching on a secular, humanistic, naturalistic, atheist level is a form of indoctrination, Merlyn. It just suits your agenda so you ignore it."

ANWER THAT QUESTION, MERLYN.

"Do my eyes deceive me? Can it be that this thread has finally wound its way back to an issue that actually has something to do with the Boy Scouts of America?"

The entire thread has something to do with BSA and how you incorporate the Scouting Ideals into your daily life. "Duty to God", "Morally Straight", "A Scout is Brave", "A Scout is Clean" and "A Scout is Reverent".

If you don't subscribe to these ideals then you should consider starting a group that will reflect your ideals. If the problems are still there then you can work on improving it in your group without denigrating this one.

Why not start another youth organization that more closely fits your ideals? I think that would be more constructive than demeaning this one.

"I guess you don't understand real religious freedom; I'm certainly free to NOT follow any religion, right? It would be unconstitutional to pass a law requiring that all citizens belong to some religion, right? It would be unconstitutional to pass a law requiring all citizens to believe in one (or more) gods, right?"

Yes, you certainly are free to NONBELIEVE in anything you choose. What you can't do is try to impose that idea on the majority of people who disagree with you.

"I seem to have missed where you cited cases where atheists are trying to prevent religious believers from professing their beliefs; the only cases I know about are where atheists are trying to prevent the government (which is NOT a person with rights) is trying to infringe on the religious rights of its citizens by promoting religion in some form. Religious believers (and atheists) have the same rights to promote their own beliefs using their own resources; neither has the "right" to use the force of government to promote their particular point of view or impose it on the population."

Merlyn it is a government by the people for the people so your argument is senseless.

"Well, science doesn't deal in "absolute truths", that's something religions usually are trying to sell. And history and literature even less so. Do you object to teaching the earth is round? There are sincere religious believers who insist it's flat because their interpretation of the bible says so. And again, exactly what views are you abscribing to atheism? About the only way a school could promote atheism is to explicitly teach that gods don't exist, and I've never heard of this happening in the US (while the promotion of theism does occur with some frequency). If you point to, say, evolution, I can point to quite a number of theists who have no problem with evolution. Remember, evolution doesn't say anything about gods. It can't be teaching atheism because it doesn't teach anything about gods. "

Merlyn, as it stands now the public school system is reduced to teaching in totally secular terms, completely unfair to the nation's majority that have religious beliefs. We'll use your example of evolution, by ignoring creation, you are giving credence to the theory of evolution. Evolution is a direct contradition to many religious beliefs. Schools have no problem teaching ideas from naturalists and humanists so yes, they definitely should add ideas from other perspectives. A better solution yet would be for atheist organizations to stop fighting school vouchers so parents could send their children to the schools of their choice. What is your objection to each individual family choosing where to send their child? Certainly it isn't using tax dollars to promote religion if individuals have a choice. The information from nonbelieving groups would have you believe is that religious schools will indoctrinate and not teach. Teaching on a secular, humanistic, naturalistic, atheist level is a form of indoctrination, Merlyn. It just suits your agenda so you ignore it.

As far as your example of the notary, I don't necessarily agree with the choice that state made but then we were supposed to have a great deal of state's rights so people in different locales could make different decisions that suited the majority in their location.

FirstPusk writes the following:

"Among them the very beginning of life hundreds of millions of years ago. But in the real world that is how things work. Our minds solve one problem but see in the solution a dozen more difficult questions to ponder. Such is science. You read too much fictional science and not enough of the real thing. If you understood evolution, you would know that at this time there is no viable scientific alternative. But then again, according to you I am not a reasoning or logical person."

FirstPusk, please reread what you wrote. I am not as sensitive as you are or I would take offense at your insinuations. Your assessment that I said you are not a reasoning or logical person is only true if you repudiate other alternatives to evolution. So I guess you are the actually labeling yourself--please don't try to assess the responsibility on me then. And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers. We that to be true, would we have cancer,aids, downs syndrome, etc? I would certainly hope not.

"American Atheist labors on behalf of the civil rights of these non-believers who defend the right to freedom from religion."

Merlyn's Response

"And?"

I guess you don't understand that no where in the consitution is it expressed that you or any member of any religious group has a right to freedom from religon--just freedom of religion--the denial of all religious beliefs can not qualify as a religion. Oh, my religion is no religion--makes little sense Merlyn, surely you see that.

Merlyn further writes: "How, exactly, does an atheist group defending the rights of atheists reduce your religious freedom? Again, BE SPECIFIC."

1) It reduces our(our being believers in a diety/dieties) religious freedoms because part of BELIEVING as opposed to NONBELIEVING requires profession of such beliefs, Merlyn. Now, in this supposedly religiously tolerant world, it would seem that you would have become educated enough to know this. Or haven't you explored religions before stating that you believe in MAN above all else?????

2) It allows public schools that we pay tax money to support to propagate ATHEIST, HUMANIST, NATURALIST views in areas of science, history, literature, etc. as absolute truths, an idea I strongly oppose.

3) It turns democracy into a headstand with the smallest groups controlling the majorities, no different than other world governments that dictate secular ideas in place of religion to the masses.

It's just silly to keep insisting that your intent is not to inhibit our basic right to worship as we choose.

In response to this Merlyn counters with:

"That isn't my intent; stop slandering me. Again, quote SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what you're referring to."

Merlyn, surely you understand in the English Language, you can be used to refer to a specific person as in one (Merlyn for example) or it can be used to refer to a group as in a collective usage (Atheists for example). If you have a problem with delusions of persecution or paranoia disorder, then I truly apologize. I meant it in the collective sense.

I've read a number of websites concerning atheist issues recently to see what many of you (notice I said many so as to not hear hair splitting argument), do or don't believe. I found interesting how some atheist websites encourage teen age children of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims to denounce their family's religious values in favor of the atheist view point.

Merlyn's answer:

"Which, of course, is their right; they have the right, JUST AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE, to promote their point of view, right? Do you think it would be difficult for me to find, say, a Christian website that encourages children to denounce their family's religious values in favor of the Christian viewpoint?"

Well Merlyn, you just answered that question a little differently than any of us would have; you see most of us believe that we have the right to influence our OWN children's beliefs but not the belief's of other people's children. That is to say, this organization that you and others sharing your LACK OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM, keep calling bigotted and intolerant just want a place for our kids to get together with people of similiar belief systems. We aren't out trying to sway your children's beliefs and encouraging your children to embrace different ideas from their parent's. And you say your ironymeter went off--mine has been at your views throughtout this entire thread.

Please continue to NONBELIEVE as you choose but try to see that your efforts to curtail our BELIEVING is against our religious freedoms.

2 liter soda bottles for terrariums or rockets.

Metal candy tins for pocket first aid kits.

Film cannisters hold dryer lint, wood shavings, etc for fire starting.

Any interesting items for "Genius Kits" Have kits with all sorts of interesting items--have groups of boys make a useful item out of it

Cardboard boxes to make games.

Toilet paper rolls cut in increments and covered make napkin rings for blue and gold.

Scraps of material, feathers, pinecones, coat hangers, wood scraps

all come in handy for craft projects.

Audit reports for the BSA can be found easily on the internet.

So this exact science of evolution starts in the middle and that's ok with you? Whereas creation as related to us in Genesis starts with God creating the heavens and earth.

"Abiogenisis is a theory that certain low forms of living matter can come from non-living material."

Sounds strikingly similiar to how God created Adam from the dust of the earth to me.

"The validity of evolution does not rely on a definitive answer of your question."

Just say I throw you the bone and give you that point, what about the missing link (another insignificant item in the equation?) or the finds that have been improperly reconstructed and corrected later (is that too just so what material?). There are far more questions than answers in the theory of evolution and far too much doubt in it's validity by scientists for a reasoning logical person to repudiate other alternatives.

Scouts out there---what do you like best about your Scoutmaster, Assistant Scoutmaster, SPL, PL?

Merlyn writes:

"And exactly who is trying to take this away? Be specific; removing 'under god' from the pledge or official congressional chaplains does nothing to remove your religious rights."

Why, your fellow non believers of course! From www.atheists.org:

"We are aware that in legal issues concerning "religious liberty", there are those affected to have no religious beliefs whatsoever. American Atheist labors on behalf of the civil rights of these non-believers who defend the right to freedom from religion."

I've read a number of websites concerning atheist issues recently to see what many of you (notice I said many so as to not hear hair splitting argument), do or don't believe. I found interesting how some atheist websites encourage teen age children of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims to denounce their family's religious values in favor of the atheist view point.

It's just silly to keep insisting that your intent is not to inhibit our basic right to worship as we choose. A basic component of virtually any religious belief system is to be able to exemplify those beliefs in thought word and deed. Certainly it shouldn't be offensive to someone who believes in no diety to be exposed to the fact that the majority of people living in the same country don't share that same idea. It is however, offensive to people with religious beliefs to be denied the opportunity to live them in their daily lives.

And the first organisms that started this evolutionary chain came from...?

Venturer2002, you're right; you can't exclude religion from a person's life just because he/she is in school. That's exactly what atheists would like to have happen; remove all traces of God. Not exactly demonstrating tolerance to other people's views, is it?

Slontwoovy; another great way of saying the same thing. It's our responsibility to speak up when other's would try to take away a constitutional right, freedom of religon.

Now I know we'll hear more about the lemon law used to test it but even the justices refuse to embrace such nonsense anymore. The intent was clear in the myriad of documents still available that we were to be able to worship at the church of our choice but be able to worship!

Merlyn, glad to hear you're not sure. That's a step in the right direction.

Venturer2002, you're right; you can't exclude religion from a person's life just because he/she is in school. That's exactly what atheists would like to have happen; remove all traces of God. Not exactly demonstrating tolerance to other people's views, is it?

Slontwoovy; another great way of saying the same thing. It's our responsibility to speak up when other's would try to take away a constitutional right, freedom of religon.

Now I know we'll hear more about the lemon law used to test it but even the justices refuse to embrace such nonsense anymore. The intent was clear in the myriad of documents still available that we were to be able to worship at the church of our choice but be able to worship!

Merlyn, glad to hear you're not sure. That's a step in the right direction.

"However, atheism is another belief system in which the practitioner KNOWS that there is no deity"

Let's be accurate, shall we, try ASSUMES, BELIEVES, SUPPOSES. An atheist that "KNOWS" is surely not going on logic, so what could they be basing it on, FAITH?

I was curious why you didn't give Umberto Eco credit for more than the post script the other day--such a large part of your post was his verbatim.

PS I understood your insinuation in the post scrip, just wanted to see if you would stand behind your words.

As I was reading these posts today, it became apparent that we, the people who believe in "Duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent" need to begin advocating those ideals. By advocacy, I mean take the time to get your beliefs and principles known. Write a letter to every politician in your area, to your congressmen, President of the U.S., etc. Send letters to corporations in your area that let them know how valuable their contribution to the BSA would be to you and your family. Let those entities that no longer support the BSA in your area know how your support will no longer be available to their endeavors. We do have a responsibility in the preservation of our rights and it's time we start fulfilling it.(This message has been edited by ScoutParent)

"Doesn't Merlyn's presence here represent the very essence of the strength of our system?"

No, not really. If this was a forum for those interested in discussing the government of our country, or for debating religious principles only, then yes it would; but the fact is this is a forum for Scouters and Merlyn has clearly shown that he is not interested in the scouting programs.

Why is it that if pagans, atheists, satanists want the right to express themselves, we are supposed to sit back quietly but when people who feel a Duty to God want the same right, we are considered bigotted or closed minded? I find this double standard incredible considering the "enlightenment" period that spawned many of these people's beliefs. It seems Jefferson's quotes want to be applied one way only.

I didn't understand the allusion in your post script, could you clarify that for me?

Packsaddle,

Please click on Merlyn's posts and read them. You will find there, in his own words that he has no interest in the scouting program; that he is an atheist and that his interest is in promoting the rights of atheists. It is perfectly within Merlyn's right to be an atheist; I'm not debating that. What I am questioning is the appropriateness of his continued participation in a forum that is for people of an organization that holds religious principles that include a duty to God and for people that share an interest in the BSA program.

Sort of seems like you forget that part about free exercise of religious beliefs, Merlyn. What I don't really understand is why you feel it is appropriate for you to enter into debate on a board that is connected to an organization that clearly hold different religious beliefs from your own? When you have no interest in the organization otherwise, it seems one can conclude you are interested in disrupting only. Otherwise, if you hold true to the belief that their is NO God and you believe in respecting people's religious beliefs, what compels you to return here?

As the senior level of cub scouting, Webelos are to be involved in more advanced activities than the younger scouts. While it is a fun program they are beginning to learn skills that they will build on in BSA. It is considered a transitory time when they are preparing for the boy scouting experience and need to start learning how to do that. The parents no longer can sign off on badges. The badges are expected to be earned in meetings and on their own; getting them ready to accept the responsiblity of BSA. They begin to take part in troop activities and meetings. It's an exciting time for the boys and for the leaders.

Boy, was the impact ever great on us back here! I had two brothers in Viet Nam; remember clearly praying for their safe return every night and then there was the year we had the Christmas Tree in the living room until July when my brother could be with us. My mom just would not consider taking it down til he was home. Making comic books and sending them. Writing letters to them before I was able to write. I still thank God every day that both of them came home safely.