DWise1_AOL
-
Content Count
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by DWise1_AOL
-
-
Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? BarrySo without conditions' date=' you are a "yes" with Fruits of the Spirit.[/quote']
No, that is not at all what I said! I was quite clear in what I said, so I cannot help but believe that you are deliberately misrepresenting me!
I am a very definite "NO" on teaching Fruit of the Spirit (not "Fruits of the Spirit" as you keep mis-calling it)! That is "NO" spelled "N", "O". Do you understand what "NO" means? If not, then what part of "NO" do you not understand?
Teaching the theology of "Fruit of the Spirit" would be counter-productive and would exclude too many children as well as teaching the wrong lesson. So "NO" on Fruit of the Spirit.
What I do support is the teaching of positive behavior and personality traits to everybody, excluding nobody! I support teaching them as something to work towards and to try to achieve and to actively practice daily.
Please try to make some kind of effort to not deliberately misunderstand everything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
Just don't call them Fruits of the Spirit.Why not? True, "Fruit of the Spirit" is the proper term, but you have not called it anything but "Fruits". In every single one of your posts in this topic you have repeatedly and persistently called it "Fruits of the Spirit." I cannot find a single instance where you yourself have used the proper term, but instead always called it "Fruits of the Spirit." In fact, in the very same message, to which I'm responding now, in which you chastise me for having followed your lead by called them "Fruits of the Spirit" (which, as I recall, I had even copy-and-pasted from your own message), you just called them "Fruits of the Spirit" yet again! In fact, I did use the proper term, "Fruit of the Spirit", when I first responded to your question, "What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit?", whereas you never have used the proper term here.
That is very hypocritical of you. Have you ever read the Gospels? Did you happen to notice what Jesus thought of hypocrites?
You should also review Jesus' teachings instead of dwelling on Paul so much:
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I get it.You quite obviously do not.
Please note that I used the word "not" there, which indicates the negative. For some reason, that seems to be an exceptionally difficult concept for you to comprehend.
BTW, I responded to your question about what I thought of Fruit of the Spirit. What do you think of James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance? Again, I have it posted at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, but with Googoe you could find many other copies of it on-line. Since Madison wrote it a few years before drafting the First Amendment, it provides us with the insight to the original intent of the Establishment Clause. Important reading for every American.
-
Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? BarryFirst' date=' The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. [/quote']
Actually, you have that reversed. It should read, The argument of the Bible being written by God is only relevant for folks needing that argument to support their theology.
We all know how books are written and by whom, namely people. You have a special reason to claim that your God wrote the Bible, but we don't. You are making a very extraordinary claim there, one that demands strong evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, why should we abandon common sense and believe your unfounded claim? I'm sure that you and others who share the same theology have swapped stories and arguments that you think support your claim convincingly, but just because you, who are already convinced, think it convincing does not mean that we are not yet convinced would too. Remember that creationist who told that the reason I found his weak claims unconvincing was because I was not yet convinced. You may be convinced, but we are not and will not be until you could provide truly convincing evidence.
Your false belief that we're just trying to do what we want without guilt is a sadly common one among Christians, one which causes you trouble. A creation science activist claims that he used to be an atheist. His story is that he was raised with a strong Christian upbringing, but in 9th grade with his hormones bubbling away, he applied that same lesson he had been taught his whole life, that if he didn't believe that God existed then he could do anything he wanted to guilt-free. So he pretended to himself that he had become an atheist. And in doing so, he was just doing what his church had taught him, the same teaching that you just echoed here.
You guys really need to be more careful what you teach your kids.
Finally (another paragraph change)' date=' in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit?[/quote']I agree that teaching positive traits and attitudes such as is taught by the Scout Law and by the Fruits of the Spirit would be beneficial. However, Fruits of the Spirit itself should not be taught because it would be counter-productive. Teach the traits, but not that teaching!
First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA, only about 73-76% of the population self-identifies as Christian. So in the classroom, FotS would only apply to three-quarters of the students. What about the other 25%? You'd have to tell them that it doesn't apply to them, since they're not Christian. You would effectively be telling them that those ideals are not for them So what are you tell them to aspire to?
Second, FotS has nothing to do with trying to develop those traits, but rather they're just supposed to magically happen to you. Every time it's been taught to me, it was taught that we cannot take action ourselves to develop those traits, but rather it can only come from the Spirit. What good would teaching that do? The kids don't have to even try to emulate those traits, but rather just sit and wait for it. And the non-Christian kids will never receive those gifts, so what kind of terrors are they supposed to become?
But it gets even worse. I've encountered several "true Christians" who would believe that only "true Christians" would receive those FotS. What's a "true Christian"? Only those who share their beliefs, so all those other Christians who believe differently aren't really Christians. And a number of them absolutely refuse to consider Catholics to be Christians. Refering to demographic figures on Wikipedia:
Total Christian -- 73%
Total Protestant -- 48%
Evangelical Protestant -- 19%
Mainline Protestant -- 15%
Black church -- 8%
Catholic -- 22%
Mormon -- 2%
Eastern Orthodox -- 1%
So by "true Christian" reckoning, I guess only Evangelicals would have communion with the Spirit to receive the Fruits, and maybe also the Black churches. That would be only 27% of the kids in the classroom that FotS would apply to, with the vast majority being left out.
No, teaching them Fruits of the Spirit would be an unmitigated disaster.
Instead, teach them the positive traits. Teach them to work towards developing those traits, as we teach our Scouts. Hold them to those standards. Just don't teach them counter-productive theology.
-
I read some of your replies to my post and they are a bit out there. I think you must have me confused with someone else because I didn't write anything about the Civil War. I simply spoke a few words on just morality. You kind of went off in a lot of directions. By t he way I'm keeping this response simple, I hit return by mistake and as a result I'm typing this reply a second time. What a mess. My message was simple, as long as man follows man's morality, there will never be peace because man's morlity changes almost daily from ambitioin and greed. God is neither ambitious or greedy and His morality never changes. What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit? That is a small example of character traits God ask man to display. Kind of like the Scout Law. BarryWhat did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit? That is a small example of character traits God ask man to display. Kind of like the Scout Law.
I came across that in my fundamentalist Christian training as a kind of fellow traveller. And it has come up a number of times in on-line discussions.
Yes, they are ideal qualities as are the qualities of the Scout Law, but the comparison seems to end there. The qualities in the Scout Law are ideals to which we are aspire, but in the theology that I was taught and which was the context of the other on-line discussions, the Fruit of the Spirit is not something that we can aspire to but rather is something that we acquire through the Spirit. IOW, the qualities in the Scout Law are standards that we are to work towards acquiring, whereas the qualities of the Fruit of the Spirit are just something that's supposed to happen to Christians. Now, the story may well be different in other of the myriad forms of Christian theology, but that was what I was taught and have always heard. It was the same story with morality, for which I can find no place in Christian theology and which fundamentalists have told me is supposed to just happen when you're saved -- needless to say, I'm not buying that, but that's their story and they're sticking with it.
And it turns out that this "it's supposed to just happen" view of the Fruit of the Spirit has played a role in many Christian youth eventually leaving the faith and even religion altogether. Various conservative Christian youth ministries and conservative polls arrive at figures of 65% to 80% of young people raised in the conservative Christian faiths (including fundamentalists and evangelicals) losing their faith by the time they reach young adulthood with many if not most of them leaving religion altogether. In testimonials on ex-Christian forums, I have seen the issue of the Fruit of the Spirit raised a number of times, wherein the individual could not understand why it wasn't working for him/her, leading to uncertainty and insecurity about actually being saved, etc, which then led to other problems. It's like I keep trying to get creationists to understand, that they need to be careful what they teach their kids because their kids will take it seriously and will come back to them when they discover that it doesn't work.
But was Paul right about what the Fruit of the Spirit was? After all, he was writing that when Christianity was just starting out and was listing ideals, whereas we have had nearly two millennia of practical real-world observations of Christianity in action. And in that time, what fruits have we found? Bigotry, intolerance, oppression, tyranny, hypocrisy, willful ignorance (especially prevalent in "creation science"), just to name a few. I could ask whether, according to Christian doctrine, a good tree can bring forth evil fruit? But that would just be more pearls cast before swine.
-
I read some of your replies to my post and they are a bit out there. I think you must have me confused with someone else because I didn't write anything about the Civil War. I simply spoke a few words on just morality. You kind of went off in a lot of directions. By t he way I'm keeping this response simple, I hit return by mistake and as a result I'm typing this reply a second time. What a mess. My message was simple, as long as man follows man's morality, there will never be peace because man's morlity changes almost daily from ambitioin and greed. God is neither ambitious or greedy and His morality never changes. What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit? That is a small example of character traits God ask man to display. Kind of like the Scout Law. BarryI read some of your replies to my post and they are a bit out there.
My minister did talk to me about my tendency to cast pearls before swine. Though he was referring to BSA at the time.
I think you must have me confused with someone else because I didn't write anything about the Civil War.No, I'm not the one who's confused:
Except for the civil war' date=' the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God.[/quote']Your words exactly, character-for-character, since I had copy-and-pasted that from the forum so that I could work on my reply off-line.
I simply spoke a few words on just morality.Many more than just a few.
You kind of went off in a lot of directions.I was just responding to what you had posted. And, like in responding to a Gish Gallop, I had a lot to explain to you. Again with casting pearls before swine!
FYI, the "Gish Gallop" was the name given to a favored debating trick^H^H^H^H^Hactic of creationist Dr. Duane Gish. Within a couple minutes he would rapidly rattle off several utterly false and deceptive claims to which his opponent could not possibly respond to effectively within the debate format (10 to 20 minutes to respond) because a proper response would easily take a few hours. And since a written debate precludes use of the Gish Gallop, most creationists will absolutely refuse a written debate.
My message was simple' date=' as long as man follows man's morality, there will never be peace because man's morlity changes almost daily from ambitioin and greed. God is neither ambitious or greedy and His morality never changes.[/quote']And just what exactly is God's morality? By that, I mean which parts of the Bible enumerate it and which parts don't? Obviously it has to include the long list of laws set down in the Torah, including forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. Or would you prefer to leave that one out, since it offends our present-day sense of morality? But why should you allow our present-day sense of morality to overrule God's morality? The fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative/what-have-you rhetorics that I repeatedly hear is that God's morality is absolute. And yet I repeatedly see such Christians picking and choosing which parts they want to observe and which they don't. The reasoning/excuse I hear is that the Christ came to fulfill those laws, so they don't apply anymore, and yet those same Christians' calls for imposing God's morality on the rest of society includes those very laws that supposedly don't apply anymore. To the rest of us, that looks like blatant hypocrisy. Just exactly who decides which parts of God's "absolute" morality is to be observed and how exactly do they decide that?
Which brings us to a necessary discussion, for which we can grant your premises for sake of this discussion, those premises being the existence of your God and that the rules of God's morality are in the Bible and the corrupting influence of Man (which I do not disagree with). Also for sake of this discussion, we will not address the problems of picking and choosing which parts of God's morality to apply, though we will still recognize that such picking and choosing does occur.
OK, you want Man to follow God's morality. How will that happen? More specifically, who would implement it? God? Never has happened. Rather, it's always Man who does the implementing. It's always Man who forms governments and makes laws. It's always Man who creates and administers religions. And it's always Man who picks and chooses which parts of God's morality to implement. How did you describe Man?
If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point' date=' they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek.[/quote']In your view, Man, being corrupt, creates laws to advance his own greed and ambition. So what will happen when corrupt Man creates laws to implement God's morality? The same thing that we have seen happen over and over again throughout two millennia of Christian history, Man using God's morality to create laws that advance his own greed and ambition while typically ignoring the meek. It has happened before and it will happen again. A shining example is in how corrupt Man used the Bible to make convincing arguments for slavery. The Bible is a wonderful tool for corrupt Man, since it can be used to support almost any position or cause.
How then would corrupt laws based on God's morality be any different from laws based on Man's morality? Most importantly, corrupt laws based on God's morality would be immune to change, because to question those laws would be to question God Himself. Or at least that is how it would be viewed. OTOH, man-based laws are readily open to being questioned and either repealed or replaced. But nobody would dare to even consider questioning any God-based laws. Except for atheists, but they would be driven deep underground under a God-based government.
Please note that this is what would happen whether or not God exists, the Bible is the literal Word of God, or those rules in the Bible are God's morality. That is what would happen whether your religious beliefs are right or whether mine are. The only real difference between us on this question is that you somehow believe that Man can be perfect, whereas I do not believe that. Just as I cannot believe in the infallibility of Man, unlike biblical literalists.
-
Wow, Dwise1, I just saw all this and we could have an enjoyable discussion. Sadly my Scouter.com editor doesn't work well and you wrote A LOT. But I will give you this, when I speak of my God, I am speaking of a real living God. When you speak of any god, you refer to the actions of man. Until you can at least keep the discussion apples to apples, it will be hard to understand at least my side of the discussion. In simplicity, God is omnipotent, He is perfect. Man is neither, not even close. Oh as for the 39 books of the NT, you said you didn't even get to th epart where Lot was suduced by his daughters. That is in the first quarter of the first chapter of 39 chapters. BarrySorry. Quazse' date=' I used chapter instead of book because I wasn't sure DWise knew the difference.[/quote']
So then another of your adolescent insults. Duly noted.
The text editor doesn't work.Could be some kind of incompatibility between the forum software and your browser. I now have little problem using Chrome under Windows 7. Though that might also depend on what kind of a mood the forum software is in.
Chrome is free, BTW.
-
Wow, Dwise1, I just saw all this and we could have an enjoyable discussion. Sadly my Scouter.com editor doesn't work well and you wrote A LOT. But I will give you this, when I speak of my God, I am speaking of a real living God. When you speak of any god, you refer to the actions of man. Until you can at least keep the discussion apples to apples, it will be hard to understand at least my side of the discussion. In simplicity, God is omnipotent, He is perfect. Man is neither, not even close. Oh as for the 39 books of the NT, you said you didn't even get to th epart where Lot was suduced by his daughters. That is in the first quarter of the first chapter of 39 chapters. BarrySadly my Scouter.com editor doesn't work well ...
I agree. Plus it can be temperamental, apparently depending on the health of the forum software itself. I actually had the experience of trying to edit what I had written in the middle of a line and the editor kept throwing me back to the end of the line. Very frustrating and difficult to do anything constructive. It seems to be working better now, FWIW.
So instead of using the built-in editor, use your own favorite text editor and then copy-and-paste from it into the forum. Very simple and easy to do. Just start entry of a comment or post and instead of typing the message you paste from your favorite text editor. That's been my SOP for decades.
... and you wrote A LOT.I was just responding to what you had posted. If you hadn't tossed in all that extraneous stuff about big sticks and claims about pre-Civil War US politics, my response would have been much shorter.
But I will give you this' date=' when I speak of my God, I am speaking of a real living God.[/quote']Yes, of course. As would anyone who actually believes in a real living god. Yes, I do realize that is what you believe and that that is what you are speaking of. Why would you think that I don't?
Is it that you wish to require me to think and believe the same as you do?
God is omnipotent' date=' He is perfect.[/quote']Yes, of course. Those are the attributes that your theology has assigned to your god and you do believe that. I do realize all that. Why would you think that I don't?
Is it that you wish to require me to think and believe the same as you do?
Man is neither' date=' not even close.[/quote']I most certainly agree with you on that one. Do you think that I don't?
When you speak of any god' date=' you refer to the actions of man.[/quote']Yes, because that is what we do actually see. Governments are all man-made and man-operated. Religions are all created by man, developed by man, and operated by man. Theologies are all man-made, man-developed, man-taught, and man-interpreted.
You tried to claim that God was in charge of this country in the period before the Civil War. No, Man was in charge. You want to credit God for that time of "peace", when actually that was a time of political turmoil, fervent biblical defense of slavery, and oppression of religious minorities. If that was your religion in charge during that time, then by the Matthew 7:20 Test yours is a false religion -- read Matthew 7:20 and the related verses next to it to see that that is Jesus' assessment.
Of course, if you decide that your claim is not correct and that it was Man in charge of the government throughout our history, then of course the Matthew 7:20 Test would not apply in this case.
I did ask you:
The thing is that it is always man and never any god who wields political power. Please name at least one god who ever actually ruled a country personally; ... .Well, can you think of even one such god?
Until you can at least keep the discussion apples to apples' date=' it will be hard to understand at least my side of the discussion.[/quote']What makes you think that I don't understand your side of the discussion?
Are you trying to say that in order for us to even have a discussion, then I must think and believe the same way as you do? That would be extremely unreasonable of you.
Do you believe that in order to understand a position one must actually hold and believe that position? In creation/evolution discussions, I have come across creationists who held that position. And from ex-Christian Fundamentalists I have read discussions of the mental processes involved and their consequences. But I will not bring it in here.
Quite obviously, my beliefs are different than yours. If that is something that you cannot deal with, then I feel sorry for you.
Remember, nothing divides people and splinters societies more than religious differences. At least within Scouting any and all religious differences are supposed to be put aside in favor of the principles of Scouting. Remember, both Duty to God and A Scout is Reverent entail respect for the religious beliefs of others:
pg 8
A Scout is Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.
pg 550
... To do my duty to God ...
Your family and religious leaders teach you how to know and love God and the ways in which God can be served. As a Scout, you do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings in your daily life, and by respecting the rights of others to have their own religious beliefs.
BTW, I really do recommend reading James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance. I posted it at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html or you could Google for other postings. Since Madison wrote it a few years before drafting the First Amendment, it provides us with the original intent of the Establishment Clause. Important reading.
Oh as for the 39 books of the NT' date=' you said you didn't even get to th epart where Lot was suduced by his daughters. That is in the first quarter of the first chapter of 39 chapters.[/quote']Yes, in my first attempt fifty years ago, I didn't get that far. That does not in any way mean nor imply that I haven't done any more reading since then! Whatever could have given you the idea that I hadn't?
And it's the Old Testament that consists of 39 books in the King James Version. The New Testament consists of 27 books, as per the KJV. Plus Genesis has fifty chapters, not 39. And the story of Lot's incestuous rape (not seduction, since he was passed out ("he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose", Gen. 19:33) and was hence incapable of giving consent) by his daughters is in Chapter Nineteen (19) of Genesis, not in the first chapter of Genesis as you are claiming. Really! What are you talking about?
-
Who else saw that the discussion leave the reservation after my first point. Qwazse, I enjoy your post, but I think you're half of the discussion is so deep with slavation that DWise's adolescent view of God can't understand value of religious morality, much less Christain morality. Before I try to contribute on a more pragmatic level, I would like to suggest DWise to do a search on "Fruits of the Spirit" and compare them with the Scout Law. Now on the basis of morality, all folks live by a moral code of some kind. For the sake of this dicussion, moral code is the code we use to define acts of right and wrong. Where mankind struggles is having to follow a moral code with parts they may not agree. Usually folks are willing to take the good with the bad, but when the masses of a society decide to follow only those parts of the code they pick and choose, chaos eventually follows.And then one way or another order will be forced by what I call the person with the biggest stick. Except for the civil war, the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God. Peace is easy when the majority of society follow one set of rules. Well easy within the context of peace versus chaos. But times are changing, people today or more self centered, which doesn't fit well in a religiously concieved moral code. The main difference between moral code defined by man and code defined by God is that God's moral code is pretty consistant through time, man's code changes fast and often. When man grabs (is given) the big stick, it is usually by political will and that never last long. If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point, they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek. God has none of those self-centered traits, so the meek are the high priority because the actions of His moral code are selfless actions to enhanse lives of everyone toward a peaceful existance. I believe Dwise is truely an antheist because he appears repulsed by a living God, That he couldn't get half way through the first book of 39 in the Old Testeament or Pauls New Testament guidance of a living God proves it. Dwise does Jesus's simple rules of conduct beause they are obvious actions of peace, he just doesn't like them coming from from an invisible omnipotent source. The God in Genesis doesn't have his fatherly image. Ironic that Jesus is God in both the Old and New Testament. Still Dwise believes in a peaceful coexistance and understands following rules of right and wrong are how we get there. I agree with him about the virtues of Scout Law and Oath. I am curious to see how his moral code can stand up the man who takes the big stick. BarryThe main difference between moral code defined by man and code defined by God is that God's moral code is pretty consistant through time' date=' man's code changes fast and often.[/quote']
Our opinions differ here. You have presented your, so I will present mine.
Morality really has nothing to do with the supernatural, nor the supernatural with morality -- your claim is that it does, given your premise that a supernatural entity dictated the moral code that's in the Bible. Rather, morality has everything to do with people and societies and how people interact within societies and within all social interactions. Whether actions are to be deemed right or wrong depends on whether the outcome of those actions was beneficial to the social order and, hopefully, either beneficial or at least minimally detrimental to the people involved. That can be a delicate balance that doesn't always work out fairly. Over time, society learns what works and what doesn't and, since it's far better to learn from others' mistakes than from your own **, parents teach their children the moral lessons that they have learned. The only real role of religion in that process is that it is the religious organization that codifies the rules, preserves them, and passes them on to each new generation. And as an added "bonus", the moral rules also get incorporated in the society's mythology in order to "explain" where they came from and why you need to follow them, as well as lending some extra authority to them. That's all that happened with the Bible. Those rules were codified in the society, got written down, and other societies ended up adopting them as well. For that matter, it appears that a lot of Mosaic Law, if not most, was itself adopted from the Code of Hammurabi, though Mosaic Law tends to be far more strict about the rights of slaves and their children, but we would expect stricter rules in a harsher environment where your society's very survival is in more peril than in a city. In that case, since the god and goddess Bel and Anu were the Givers of the Hammurabic Code, you should be thanking them and YHWH for your "God's moral code".
Your "God's moral code" was not "pretty consistant through time", at least not at first. It was a conceit of the Romantic Era that folk tales and traditions went back several centuries, but in reality they only went back no more than a few generations. An oral tradition is very flexible and able to change in a very short time. For example, an isolated African tribe, the Dogon, had a mythology based on the star Sirius. It wasn't until the late 19th century that we discovered Sirius B, a faint white dwarf companion to Sirius A which is invisible to the naked eye and difficult to see through a telescope, but the Dogon's mythology included reference to that smaller companion. However, it turns out that news of that discovery had somehow made its way to the Dogon who immediately modified their oral tradition to include it. Similarly, in examining the creation myth of the Mandan Indians we find it repeatedly changing drastically within a few generations to reflect their radically changing life-styles through contact with Europeans. In contrast to oral tradition which can change rapidly, written traditions change very slowly. Students of Western European languages know that you can hardly understand at all your own language a mere 500 years ago, whereas Modern Greek words, which have been written since ancient times, are still written very similar to their ancient counterparts. So your "God's moral code" being "pretty consistant through time" only happened when it got written down. Before then, it changed quite regularly as needed.
So what is the constant factor over time? Man's nature, which is genetic. It takes a long time for our genome to change, especially if there's no selective pressure to force it to; at most, the selective pressure has been to be more sociable and more willing to learn and follow social rules, with those who cannot being eliminated from society. The circumstances that a society faces can change rapidly, but human nature remains constant. You could come up with arbitrary rules that you think will work well, but there will often be unforeseen consequences that you could never anticipate. A few such rules just might work and they will be kept and incorporated into "God's moral code" (meaning become part of the moral code and teachings that get passed on to the next generation), even though most arbitrary rules will have to be abandoned or corrected (and then possibly abandoned) because they just didn't work. We keep what works and we drop what doesn't. And within a generation or two, everyone will believe that it's been that way since forever. Until it gets written down.
{** FOOTNOTE:
For example, a co-worker and good friend (and a Christian fundamentalist) was a problem teenager, so he spent a few years on a boys' ranch. When he arrived, they only had four rules that mainly concerned attending chapel and cleaning up and being at meals on time. By the time he left, they had accrued more than 30 more rules, all of them due to him and basically saying, "You remember that stupid thing that Steve did? Don't do that!" Even at present, a lot of laws that get passed are in reaction to people doing something stupid that caused problems, though at least now it's no longer Steve' fault.
}
When man grabs (is given) the big stick' date=' it is usually by political will and that never last long. If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point, they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek.[/quote']Granted. And it is even more true of theocracies than it is for representative governments, because in a theocracy you have Man ruling in the name of God with the power of God and answerable to nobody but God, whom nobody has ever heard voicing any objection to what the theocrats are doing in His name.
The meek have a much better chance of it with a representative government, since that kind of government is at least supposed to be answerable to the People. As is stated in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't always happen as it should, but it's supposed to. Which is far more than can be said of any theocracy.
And that brings us right back to James Madison's observation that one result mixing religion and government will be the majority trespassing on the rights of the minority, of the meek. And it's the Bill of Rights that seeks to prevent that, not government by the Bible.
God has none of those self-centered traits' date=' so the meek are the high priority because the actions of His moral code are selfless actions to enhanse lives of everyone toward a peaceful existance. [/quote']So what does God have to do with government, outside of being a convenient excuse for ruthless rule by theocrats?
You are obviously enthralled by your theology and its conclusions, which is fine and good ... for you. Other peoples' beliefs similarly suit them just fine and their right to their own beliefs, as yours with yours, must be guaranteed. And through Scouting comes the further requirement of respecting the beliefs of others, which BSA fails at miserably.
-
Who else saw that the discussion leave the reservation after my first point. Qwazse, I enjoy your post, but I think you're half of the discussion is so deep with slavation that DWise's adolescent view of God can't understand value of religious morality, much less Christain morality. Before I try to contribute on a more pragmatic level, I would like to suggest DWise to do a search on "Fruits of the Spirit" and compare them with the Scout Law. Now on the basis of morality, all folks live by a moral code of some kind. For the sake of this dicussion, moral code is the code we use to define acts of right and wrong. Where mankind struggles is having to follow a moral code with parts they may not agree. Usually folks are willing to take the good with the bad, but when the masses of a society decide to follow only those parts of the code they pick and choose, chaos eventually follows.And then one way or another order will be forced by what I call the person with the biggest stick. Except for the civil war, the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God. Peace is easy when the majority of society follow one set of rules. Well easy within the context of peace versus chaos. But times are changing, people today or more self centered, which doesn't fit well in a religiously concieved moral code. The main difference between moral code defined by man and code defined by God is that God's moral code is pretty consistant through time, man's code changes fast and often. When man grabs (is given) the big stick, it is usually by political will and that never last long. If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point, they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek. God has none of those self-centered traits, so the meek are the high priority because the actions of His moral code are selfless actions to enhanse lives of everyone toward a peaceful existance. I believe Dwise is truely an antheist because he appears repulsed by a living God, That he couldn't get half way through the first book of 39 in the Old Testeament or Pauls New Testament guidance of a living God proves it. Dwise does Jesus's simple rules of conduct beause they are obvious actions of peace, he just doesn't like them coming from from an invisible omnipotent source. The God in Genesis doesn't have his fatherly image. Ironic that Jesus is God in both the Old and New Testament. Still Dwise believes in a peaceful coexistance and understands following rules of right and wrong are how we get there. I agree with him about the virtues of Scout Law and Oath. I am curious to see how his moral code can stand up the man who takes the big stick. BarryPeace is easy when the majority of society follow one set of rules. Well easy within the context of peace versus chaos.
Yes, that is true. A monolithic society always has it easier. But we are not a monolithic society. So what's your solution to that? Have somebody "with the biggest stick" force a single set of rules on all segments of society? Well, yes, throughout history the "biggest stick" approach has been demonstrated to work for a time. Prussia in the German Empire (das Zweite Reich), the British Army in India, Hitler in dem Dritten Reich, a procession of leaders in the Soviet Union, Tito in Yugoslavia, Sadam Hussein in Iraq, countless theocracies with their own versions of inquisitions. Even when done with brute force and ruthless repression, they maintained peace and order within their realms, keeping inter-tribal rivalies and animosity in check, such that it would often erupt violently once that strong "with the biggest stick" was no longer there.
What you appear to be proposing is that we need that "biggest stick" to be wielded by your god in order to force everyone's compliance to one set of rules. Is that what you are proposing? A theocratic dictatorship to repress all those who are not among the theologic "chosen"? You appear to want that, but how much will you still want it when it's somebody else's theology that's in charge and you are among the oppressed?
Well, as it turns out there is one set of rules in this country which I have solemnly sworn to protect and defend when I enlisted and reenlisted, so about seven times: The Constitution of the United States of America. It is not perfect, but it does provide the framework for this country to exist and to function with a diverse population. Part of the secret of letting it work is for us to remember that we are Americans first and whatever else second. Just as in Scouting we must place Scouting first and our own theology after that. If we do not keep those priorities straight, then we will end up trying to use America and Scouting to serve our own political and religious agendae, to the detriment of all. Placing religion and religious differences above country and society is a proven way to splinter a pluralistic society and generate acrimony, strife, and violence, especially if one group gains political advantage over the rest (eg, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, Sunis vs Shites throughout the Middle East).
Except for the civil war' date=' the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God.[/quote']Now, you know that is simply not true. From the beginning there were regional differences that threatened our new nation, such that portions of the Constitution were compromises (eg, appeasing the South by making slaves fractional people in order to not eliminate them altogether from calculating representation by population). Slavery and the divisions it caused in our society were there from the beginning, but repeated compromises allowed us to keep from resolving the problem, letting it continue to fester until it finally came to a head with the Civil War. Your view of that "relativlye peaceful history" ignores the political strife of that time.
And YHWH never had one of your sticks and YHWH never ran our government! The closest that we could come to your statement was that for the most part Protestant humans held that "big stick" of political power. They are the ones who abused that power to promote their own religious agendae of imposing their own religion on everyone else, including non-Protestants. They are the ones who had the public schools teach Protestantism and require Protestant prayers and reading from the Protestant Bible, all despite the repeated complaints from the parents of the Catholic students. In one instance, when a bishop in a major city (either Baltimore or Philadelphia, as I recall) merely asked that the Catholic students be allowed to read from the Catholic Bible, it triggered three days of violent anti-Catholic rioting. That is the reason why the Catholics created their own parochial school system, in order to escape Protestant oppression and forced indoctrination of their children. And when the Catholics tried to get public school funding for their own schools, the Protestants passed laws and set legal precedence in court cases to prevent the Catholics from ever getting one cent of public school money. Ironically, when in our own time the Protestants started setting up their own private schools and tried to get public school funding for them, it was the same laws and legal precedence that they had erected against the Catholics that they were now facing. Sorry, but there are some people you cannot help but enjoy seeing getting hoisted on their own petard.
So then this "the good old days" of "relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God", what was it really like? The continued imposition and determined protection of slavery, the imposition of sectarian religious laws on the populace, and the oppression of religious minorities. That directly contradicted the Founding Fathers' intent that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority *. Who in their right mind would ever want to go back to that?
Oh, but I'm sure you will protest, it also saw Christians fighting to abolish slavery. Yes, that is true. And the Abolitionists did quote from the Bible to support and justify the abolition of slavery. Just as the pro-slave Christians also quoted from the very same Bible in support and defense of slavery, at times even using the very same passages in support of slavery that the Abolitionists were using against slavery. That's the wonderful thing about the Bible. You can use it to support just about any position you want. Which means that a government that would base itself on the Bible could then use the Bible to justify almost any kind of unspeakable act it may choose to commit.
BTW, our National Motto for those first 180 years, from our declaration of independence through and past the Second World War, was "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One"), a profound statement of commitment to national unity. Sadly, that noble cause was scrapped in 1956 when it was replaced by a religious statement, which is inherently divisive in a pluralistic society, the consequences of which is now grave disunity.
{* FOOTNOTE:
The passage from James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance reads:
1. ... We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion' date=' no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. [/quote']James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution and he also drafted the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, a few years after he wrote A Memorial and Remonstrance. In the second paragraph, he describes the Wall of Separation, though he called it a "Great Barrier":
The preservation of a free Government requires not merely' date=' that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves. [/quote']Those "departments of power" are religion and government. The purpose for which A Memorial and Remonstrance was written was to protest a legislative bill that would allot government money to be paid to Protestant ministers. After A Memorial and Remonstrance was published, that bill died without being put to a vote and Thomas Jefferson's Religious Liberty bill was voted into law instead.
I have reprinted A Memorial and Remonstrance at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, though you could Google for it elsewhere if you wish. It should be required reading.
}
When man grabs (is given) the big stick' date=' it is usually by political will and that never last long.[/quote']The thing is that it is always man and never any god who wields political power. Please name at least one god who ever actually ruled a country personally; the Japanese Emperor doesn't count, because he is merely descended from a goddess, Amaterasu, and hasn't actually wielded power since circa 900 CE. Oh yes, that man in power may claim to be acting for God and be doing God's will, but we both know that's not what's happening. It is always Man. So what we must ensure is that we never allow any man to wield the power of God, which is what theocracy is. And, be honest now, that is really where your line of reasoning would lead us.
-
Who else saw that the discussion leave the reservation after my first point. Qwazse, I enjoy your post, but I think you're half of the discussion is so deep with slavation that DWise's adolescent view of God can't understand value of religious morality, much less Christain morality. Before I try to contribute on a more pragmatic level, I would like to suggest DWise to do a search on "Fruits of the Spirit" and compare them with the Scout Law. Now on the basis of morality, all folks live by a moral code of some kind. For the sake of this dicussion, moral code is the code we use to define acts of right and wrong. Where mankind struggles is having to follow a moral code with parts they may not agree. Usually folks are willing to take the good with the bad, but when the masses of a society decide to follow only those parts of the code they pick and choose, chaos eventually follows.And then one way or another order will be forced by what I call the person with the biggest stick. Except for the civil war, the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God. Peace is easy when the majority of society follow one set of rules. Well easy within the context of peace versus chaos. But times are changing, people today or more self centered, which doesn't fit well in a religiously concieved moral code. The main difference between moral code defined by man and code defined by God is that God's moral code is pretty consistant through time, man's code changes fast and often. When man grabs (is given) the big stick, it is usually by political will and that never last long. If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point, they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek. God has none of those self-centered traits, so the meek are the high priority because the actions of His moral code are selfless actions to enhanse lives of everyone toward a peaceful existance. I believe Dwise is truely an antheist because he appears repulsed by a living God, That he couldn't get half way through the first book of 39 in the Old Testeament or Pauls New Testament guidance of a living God proves it. Dwise does Jesus's simple rules of conduct beause they are obvious actions of peace, he just doesn't like them coming from from an invisible omnipotent source. The God in Genesis doesn't have his fatherly image. Ironic that Jesus is God in both the Old and New Testament. Still Dwise believes in a peaceful coexistance and understands following rules of right and wrong are how we get there. I agree with him about the virtues of Scout Law and Oath. I am curious to see how his moral code can stand up the man who takes the big stick. BarryI believe Dwise is truely an antheist ...
What does that mean? Even Google doesn't recognize that word.
... because he appears repulsed by a living God' date='[/quote']Not at all. I did not become an atheist because anything repulsed me, but rather because I simply could not believe what I was reading. I'm not even repulsed by how Christianity requires belief in human infallibility, but rather will either roll my eyes or sigh in great sadness, depending in part on the audacity of the Christian invoking it. Even the wicked fruit of dishonesty and hypocrisy (especially apparent among creationists) disappoint and disgust me more than they repulse me.
Rather what repulses me, are the wicked fruits of religious bigotry and of the attempts the Religious Right's persistent attempts to tear down religious liberty in their drive to use the government to impose their beliefs on everybody else.
You may refer to the Matthew 7:20 Test for context.
... DWise's adolescent view of God ...That was 50 years ago. Both I and my religious views have matured since then.
I still have a copy of an interesting brochure that was posted at our church. It was about a book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God, by Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack. They point out that most people have childish ideas about God because those ideas were formed in their childhood; since most people do not think about and challenge their beliefs as they themselves mature, their beliefs about God never mature and thus remain childish.
I have found it more common for Christians to keep their beliefs from maturing and less common for atheists. In self-defense against personal attacks from Christians atheists have to think about and present their beliefs, whereas too many Christians just take theirs for granted.
... ' date=' That he couldn't get half way through the first book of 39 in the Old Testeament or Pauls New Testament guidance of a living God proves it.[/quote']Completely and utterly false on both counts.
I have gotten all the way through the New Testament, cover to cover twice!. I simply did not and do not agree with the theology that Paul had built.
When I started reading the Old Testament, I was a Christian, baptized just the year before after attending for most of my childhood. I most certainly was not "repulsed by a living God" and I did believe that the Bible was the "Word of God" and that I was supposed to believe what it says. As I already stated quite clearly and unambiguously, I simply could not believe what I was reading. And since I could not believe what I was supposed to believe, I couldn't be a Christian. That's what happened. That's the complete story. Please try to stick to the facts and not to what you want to imagine.
As for the rest of your post ... . Have you ever studied formal logic? In formal logic, we start from premises and we use those premises to form conclusions which themselves can be used as premises to form other conclusions. And what we end up with, if we've followed the rules of logic correctly, is a valid set of conclusions. Valid conclusions, but not necessarily true conclusions. Because logic does not guarantee us true conclusions, but only valid conclusions. Now, if a valid conclusion's premises are true, then the conclusion is true. But if any of the premises is not true, then we have no idea whether the conclusion is true or not. So valid is not the same as true.
What I see you having built up there is logical framework, conclusions that you (or those from whom you had gotten all or part of that) have arrived at logically from a set of premises. I don't know whether that logical framework is valid, but even if we grant that all the logic is valid, that does not make it true because we would still have to prove all the premises true. Which we cannot do, in part because we cannot prove your "invisible omnipotent source" nor that it would have the exact set of properties that your theology requires your god to have. Nobody has ever been able to prove or disprove the existence of YHWH, AKA "The God of the Bible", with the possible exception of "creation science" whose resounding disproof of God itself depends on premises that are demonstrably false, though many ex-Christians had been convinced by it. Of course, you are thoroughly convinced of the truth of your premises, whereas those whose minds are not so wrapped up in and blinded by your theology are not at all similarly convinced. As a creationist once told me when I asked him why he kept using such unconvincing and repeatedly disproven creationist claims (in that case specifically, sea salt), he responded by telling me, "You do not find them convincing because you are not already convinced." Premises that can only be convincing if you are already convinced by them should be deemed suspect by any objective observer.
So to an outsider who is not yet convinced of and enthralled by the logic of your theology, that looks very similar to to listening to the girls arguing passionately, and apparently almost ready to come to blows, over scenarios in which somebody other than Thor could pick up Mjolnir (Big Bang Theory, "The Bakersfield Expedition", 10 Jan 2013). To the ones enmeshed in that logic it makes sense, but others not ensnared thus can only react with either a confused or a bemused "Huh?" as they're left trying to make some sense out of what mostly appears to be a rambling mess based on assumptions that just do not make any sense.
-
From the Bylaws of the BSA, POLICIES, Section 1 immediately following the DRP:Never heard of them pulling out an adult unless they were loudly proclaiming and promoting being an atheist.. Most the adults I know I have no idea what the believe or if they believe in anything it is just accepted that if they signed up they were at peace with what they signed. Many are not affiliated with any church at all. The only time I have heard of anything is if a boy gets a question at their eagle board, and they proclaim they are atheist or whatever, at which point it is usually as much of a surprise to the scoutmaster, and the boy may not even know that he is saying something that will hurt his chances of getting his eagle (or he does know and it is an "in your face" move)... That it also was an ambush by district leaders tells me that you had a corrupt bunch on your district staff and there was something other then your religion that caused them to want to take you down..ActivitiesClause 2. The activities of the members of the Boy Scouts of
America shall be carried on under conditions which show respect
to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion, as
required by the twelfth point of the Scout Law, reading, "Rever-
ent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious
duties. He respects the beliefs of others "
Freedom
Clause 3. In no case where a unit is connected with a church
or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other
denominations or faith be required, because of their membership
in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony dis-
tinctly unique to that organization or church.
Your position was firmly based on BSA Bylaws. And yet again BSA is in violation. Doesn't help to know that, does it?
-
Conforming to BSA's officially pubished policies is one thing. Conforming to BSA's flagrant violations of its own rules is another. I'm not sure where the leaders you mention reside.... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.
BTW, I was "outed" by a BSA National spy on CompuServe, so you might want to consider COMSEC.
-
sailingpj, at bsa-discrimination.org's page, http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lambert.html, they state:... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.
As BSA found out in 1985, not all faiths define God as a Supreme Being. With this insistence on the use of the term in this incident, BSA is finally signaling to non-Abrahamic faiths that there is no place in BSA for them. Given BSA's propensity to exclude those it does not consider to be good American citizens, it is only a matter of time before BSA defines God to be the Christian Trinity, thereby excluding Jews and Muslims from the BSA.Before the Love administration, BSA took the position that religion and religious teachings was the responsibility of the family, not BSA. The definition of who/what God is rested with the youth's family or religious leaders. BSA did not want to become embroiled in religious arguments. (They spent considerable time and effort in their early years to prove that BSA was not an Evangelical Protestant youth organization. It seems they've decided that they are!)
When Ben Love became Chief Scout Executive, BSA decided to wrap itself in the Protestant flag, which curiously occurred at the time the Religious-Right emerged as a player in American politics.
Coming within a couple of years of the Dale decision, this reversal in religious policy indicates that BSA has decided to marginalize more American youth - Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and yourself in the future.
They may well have overstated a few things there, but a push to impose a particular sectarian interpretation is clear. In 1985 when the "Supreme Being" wording caused the expulsion of Life Scout Paul Trout, BSA backed down when faced with hundreds of letters of protest and CSE Ben Love explicitly declared that wording a "mistake". Six years while still under Ben Love, that "mistake" was being enforced again to expel non-theists and thousands of letters of protest, as well as objections raised by national churches (OK, by the UUA, which BSA then unilaterally kicked out).
I think that site is on-track with what BSA's goal appears to be, to become a Christian organization, even with nominal acceptance of Jews and Muslims. In the meantime, they still have to placate their donors who have nondiscrimination policies, so they parade their officially published rules while in private they violate those rules completely.
While not a pagan myself, I do realize that there is a range of beliefs in that faith. OK, so I do appreciate the concerns of old-school Unitarians when pagans were welcomed into our big tent, much the same misgiving they had about merging with the Universalists. I also followed the communications of a UU who was involved with the Crescent and Hart religious award. They presented their application to BSA and BSA started adding on one new requirement after another, none of which had ever been required of any other religious award. And each and every new requirement was not only satisfied but exceeded. After many iterations, the ante finally got upped to having 25 units chartered, which the pagans easily did. At that point, they were flat out informed that their religious award would never be accepted. And the reason given was that the Baptists didn't want the Wiccans in BSA.
The BSA's early 1990's PR proclamations were "our values are not for sale!". They even took out a full-page ad in the local newspaper, where the Randall trial was in progress. The hypocrisy of that ad was astounding, because they admitted in court that they had indeed sold their values, to the Mormon Church. And then with respect to pagans, they sold out their values to the Baptists.
In the meantime, Buddhists are atheists. The goal in Buddhism is to gain Enlightenment and the Buddha taught against believing in the gods, because that would only hold you back from Enlightenment. Most Buddhists would not self-identify as atheists, but only because that term sounds too materialistic for them. When I asked my minister about Buddhists speaking out on the matter, he told me that the Buddhists he talked with just wanted to keep a low profile to avoid being noticed by BSA.
Of course, that was in the 1990's. This thread is seeking to learn what has changed since then. No information has been presented yet.
-
Well, if you post BS you shouldn't act surprised when you get called on it. Like your kangaroo analogy, which stinks of the BSA BS lie of "we're not excluding anybody, but rather they are excluding themselves."
But at least you now appear to be trying to actually discuss.
Here's what I've garnered from what little BSA training I've had. Their definition DOES NOT MATTER. An attempt to lead a plaintiff to leverage a relativistic-argument DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is if when asked' date=' one can say they are living a life answerable to God. The asker may not understand the breadth of that as well as the person being asked does -- or maybe it's the other way around. But, the choice of that word allows for that kind of latitude. At least what I've been taught through BSA's instruction on the matter, is that a person's willingness to say they are doing that is all I need to know.[/quote']You're headed in the right direction, but there's still a problem. BSA's definition does not matter, that is true, because officially BSA has no definition nor does it allow itself to form any definition or interpretation for "God", "belief in God", or just what "Duty to God" must entail, though it does define what "Duty to God" is, no part of which includes any specific theological requirements such as "belief in God". And as a Scouter, that is what you need to follow.
But then you come up with "What matters is if when asked, one can say they are living a life answerable to God." Meaning what exactly? Then you dissemble by effectively saying that it doesn't mean anything and yet that person's membership depends on it. What you are doing here is, as in your earlier post requiring "belief in God", is that you are creating and applying additional requirements that are not required. If you read the Advancement Guidelines, you will see something that you should have also been told on your training: you cannot add or subtract from the existing requirements. Officially, BSA does not require "belief in God" and yet you have added that requirement. Officially, BSA does not require "Duty to God" to entail "living a life answerable to God" and yet you have added your own personal interpretation as an additional requirement.
The reason why BSA attempts to define "God" is important, besides because it exposes BSA's violation of its own rules, is that that word has been loaded within our culture as referring specifically to one very specific supernatural being, YHWH. So even if you say that it could mean anything, the reality is that hardly any non-YHWHist would normally use that term to describe his own religion or belief system. So without a proper and undoubtedly lengthy discussion of what the official rules are really looking for under "Duty to God", most non-YHWHists would undoubtedly deny any belief in or allegiance to YHWH. That not at all mean that they do not do their "Duty to God" as is really required, but rather that they would deny that YHWH has anything whatsoever to do with it. And they would be perfectly right and would qualify for membership, but you would deny them that membership because of that one word, "God", and because of the additional requirements that you are imposing on them because of your own sectarian interpretations.
Try this little experiment. Replace every occurance of "God" with "Allah", or even better with "Vishnu". As a believing practicing Christian, wouldn't you be taken aback by being required to do your "Duty to Allah" or "Duty to Vishnu"? Especially if the gung-ho Scouter you're dealing with also requires to to declare that you believe in "Allah" or in "Vishnu". Would you as a believing practicing Christian normally express your religious beliefs using "Allah" or "Vishnu"? Are you starting to see what it's like to walk a mile in another man's shoes?
So why should any of this matter of BSA religious discrimination matter to you? Well, it should for several reasons, assuming that you are actually dedicated to Scouting (ie, not all volunteers register because of their support for Scouting and I'm just just talking about Mormons being drafted).
To start with, as the organization responsible for providing Scouting to US youth, BSA should at least be setting the example and leading by example by living by the principles of Scouting, rather than willfully violating those principles, most fundamentally Scout's Honor. In so refusing, BSA is setting the wrong example and sending the wrong message and public support for Scouting has suffered for it.
For example, as positive a face as I tried to put on everything, my son still could see what BSA was doing to his father and to others like the Randalls and he could plainly see how wrong their were. He's about to turn 32. When he returned home for Xmas from out-of-state university and I was driving him and a friend of his home from the airport with a minor detour so he could get a Del Taco burrito (not available in ND). As we drove past the BSA council office, he pointed it out to his friend and described it as the most evil place in the county. And the number of people who think that of BSA is growing with every dishonorable act by BSA.
Oh, you may think that this is a rare problem that hardly ever happens, but that is because you only hear what BSA tells you (which will be nothing) or what appears in the local news, which will only show up if somebody tries to fight their expulsion. But the numbers of children and adults subjected to BSA religious discrimination is quite large. Eagle Scout Steve Cozzo who saw the same hypocrisy in BSA that I've been describing founded Scouting for All (http://www.scoutingforall.org/). He reported receiving hundreds of phone call every year from scouts who had been expelled, about 60% for being gay and 40% for being atheists. It is not a minor problem.
BSA has wasted millions of dollars in court battles that it created itself and very easily could have settled out of court simply by talking with its victims. The results of those court cases, while finding that the laws cited did not apply to a private organization like BSA, did also find that BSA discriminates. And it became quite clear to the public following the news that BSA discriminates, as it also became clear to BSA's sponsors and donors who have very definite anti-discrimination policies. This has resulted in many of them dropping their support for BSA, which impacts BSA's budget which should impact their ability to promote Scouting in the USA (disregarding what's diverted to their self-inflicted legal costs and the CSE's really huge compensation package). I'm not sure, but in the reports of the recent decision to include gay youth I recall reading that BSA's main motivation in even considering the matter was because of its ever-growing loss of sponsors.
Scouting is also losing chartering organizations and hence units, because of those former COs' own anti-discrimination policies. The US military used to be a big supporter of Scout units, but they are being ordered to not sponsor any units because of BSA discrimination. And a number of public schools are no longer allowing BSA access to their students because of BSA's claim of being a secret religious organization (a legalistic lie they started using in the 1990's court cases, but which is coming back to bite them). This much further reduces the availability of Scouting to US youth, particularly the children of military families living overseas.
There's also the problem of the continuing loss of membership, which in turn concerns BSA because the donations it receives are tied to the number of youth that they are serving. Even though they have opened up programs to a wider range of members (eg, Tiger Cubs) and even though that segment of the population is still growing, membership is still shrinking. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html examines the numbers and finds that for the year ending December 31, 2012, BSA has lost over 643,566 registered Cub Scouts since 1998. Total youth membership in BSA's traditional programs has declined by approximately 27% (965,244 members), since 1997! The author of that page points to the fact that BSA is catering to the prejudices of older generations while the younger generation, the parents of boys of Scouting age, are largely repulsed by BSA's virulent discriminatory policies. Another reason that the parents of boys of Scouting age are rejecting BSA is because so many of them have friends and family who are gay or non-theists, so they know that there is nothing wrong with such people and that there is no real reason for them to be discriminated against. And the number of non-believers is steadily growing, fueled in part by the children of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christians who had been raised in the faith and are leaving it -- no, running from it -- in droves, the numbers ranging from 60% to 80% who leave religion altogether by early adulthood. While that last one is a problem for the churches which they have been doing their best to ignore, it also increases exposure to BSA religious discrimination and further erosion of public support for BSA and for Scouting.
BSA's sole purpose, its sole reason for even existing, is to provide Scouting to US youth. It is instead endangering Scouting in the USA. How could anyone who actually believes in Scouting possibly support what BSA is doing to it?
-
Khaliela, your story is a new low, even for BSA. I won't even try to guess the reason they gave you, because they never give the reason. All they say is "you do not meet the high standards of Scouting". But being told personally that it was because you're not Christian?Never heard of them pulling out an adult unless they were loudly proclaiming and promoting being an atheist.. Most the adults I know I have no idea what the believe or if they believe in anything it is just accepted that if they signed up they were at peace with what they signed. Many are not affiliated with any church at all. The only time I have heard of anything is if a boy gets a question at their eagle board, and they proclaim they are atheist or whatever, at which point it is usually as much of a surprise to the scoutmaster, and the boy may not even know that he is saying something that will hurt his chances of getting his eagle (or he does know and it is an "in your face" move)... That it also was an ambush by district leaders tells me that you had a corrupt bunch on your district staff and there was something other then your religion that caused them to want to take you down..Did you seek reinstatement within BSA? Your letter should have told you that you have the right to have your case reviewed. That review would have gone up to Regional and even to National. Yes, it's rather like the old Soviet system of government where the review board just rubber-stamps what National hands them, but you should have at least been able to go above Council. And National supported expelling you for not being Christian? They're like the legendary bad naval officer whose fitrep stated that he had hit rock-bottom and has started to dig.
-
It wasn't a local ambush, but rather it came straight down from National. No professional in BSA does anything without orders from National. DEs have standing orders to report all contacts up the chain and I'm sure that those orders do not stop there.Never heard of them pulling out an adult unless they were loudly proclaiming and promoting being an atheist.. Most the adults I know I have no idea what the believe or if they believe in anything it is just accepted that if they signed up they were at peace with what they signed. Many are not affiliated with any church at all. The only time I have heard of anything is if a boy gets a question at their eagle board, and they proclaim they are atheist or whatever, at which point it is usually as much of a surprise to the scoutmaster, and the boy may not even know that he is saying something that will hurt his chances of getting his eagle (or he does know and it is an "in your face" move)... That it also was an ambush by district leaders tells me that you had a corrupt bunch on your district staff and there was something other then your religion that caused them to want to take you down..What happened in my case was that BSA had a spy planted in the Scouting Forum on CompuServe who printed out all "suspicious" postings and passed them up to National. Believe it or not, BSA presented those printouts as evidence in federal court in Chicago for the trial of Welsh v BSA. My very first message posted there was among those printouts marked in big red letters, "Atheist leader!" I was called to testify in that trial, where I testified that I subscribe to the DRP and "Duty to God" in good conscience and cannot find anything in officially published BSA policy that would require the exclusion of an atheist. The details and sequence of events are in my timeline at http://dwise1.net/scouting/timeline.txt ; I've not published it yet, so this is the only link to it.
The reason I was on that forum on CompuServe was that the Randall case had hit the local news. When I signed on as an adult leader a couple years prior, I was at first taken aback by the blatantly Judeo-Christian language of a surface reading of the DRP, language which directly conflicted with the "absolutely nonsectarian" statement, so I researched into the matter. What I found in official BSA publications informed me that despite a surface reading a strictly Judeo-Christian interpretation was not required. I found that I, as an atheist (for 50 years now), could indeed sign the DRP and say the Oath and Law in good conscience. From that point on, the matter was settled.
But then the Randall story came out, which told me that something was very wrong. So I sought out more information of what was going on. Since the public statements of BSA (including the non-rule, "belief in Supreme Being") were completely contrary to BSA policy, I knew that BSA would not be the source of truthful information. Besides, there was BSA's actions in the Randall case. The boys in Cub Scouts raised questions about "Duty to God", the pack leaders reported it to BSA and the first indication the parents had of any trouble was the letter from BSA expelling the boys from Scouting (OK, a den leader called them before that, but it was a confused conversation that didn't impart any information). After that, BSA blocked all the parents' efforts to resolve the problem and even told the father to file a lawsuit, which he did and he won, though it was overturned by the state supreme court just as the boys had earned their Eagles. That informed me that BSA would strike without warning and would allow no recourse, so I needed to go on the record for the truth. It was at that trial that I learned about Unitarian Universalism and discovered that I had been a UU for most of my life (a common experience among UUs) and met our minister who later certified to BSA in writing that I do perform my "Duty to God" in accordance with UU teachings, which BSA chose to willfully ignore in violation of their own rules.
In the Welsh case, he went to recruitment night to sign up with his son for Tiger Cubs, communicated misgivings about the language of the DRP and the professional there barred them from joining. The Tiger Cub leader was shocked at what had just happened, let slip that her beliefs were the same as his, and she was also summarily expelled on the spot.
In the Randall case, a Jewish Cubmaster in neighboring Los Angeles County wrote to them praising them for standing up for what they believe. Two uniformed BSA professionals (dare I call them "brown shirts"?) confronted him at his work place in front of his co-workers and started interrogating him about his personal religious beliefs. When he told them that his beliefs were none of their business, in complete accordance with BSA policy, they handed him his letter of expulsion and left. I later heard from Jim Randall (one of our pack's boys invited his sons to join our pack) of an LA pack who lost its Cubmaster because of religious discrimination, so the pack appointed a new Cubmaster who every parent knew was gay and that the whole pack laughed at how idiotic BSA was being; I don't know whether that was the same pack.
BSA religious discrimination is a long and sordid story.
-
Well, what is your interpretation of the DRP? In the absolutely nonsectarian manner that is required by the rest of BSA's officially published policy (see the interpretive statement in the Advancement Guidelines, the Reaffirmation of Duty to God from 1991, and the official statements of the Relationships Division from 1985 and 1994), or in a definitely sectarian manner as is used by supporters of BSA religious discrimination?Below is the BSA Declaration of Religious PrincipleArticle IX. Policies and Definitionsâ€â€From the Charter and Bylaws
Section 1. Declaration of Religious Principle, clause 1. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.†The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.
-
Moosetraker:DWise - I am sorry for your experience in scouting as a youth, it was wrong and you were wronged.. You did say you went through years of appeal, so I would imagine it went up to National and probably beyond to the court system.. I am shocked it went so far, and that you were not victorious.. I am surprised it did not get more media attention as a case as to what is wrong with the BSA.Our District had a similar case last year. Though it took a week of deliberation and speaking more with the young man's religious witness. But, the young man made the mistake of saying at the board that he did not believe in God.. He went out with his scoutmaster while the board deliberated and the scoutmaster told him what he said wrong.. On his return he corrected himself in saying he was not an atheist, he just didn't believe in God as everyone else did.. The board was about to deny him, but decided to investigate upon the statement he did not consider himself an atheist. Lucky for him the person he put down was a Catholic priest.. the young man went to a Catholic school, yet was not Catholic.. The priest though wrote a statement on his behalf which when I saw it I thought was going to be too wishy washy for the board to accept.. The letter only stated he was respectful of others beliefs and was a good kid.. But, the board decided to consider the boy "In search of" what God means to him, but that he was not a atheist. So he was approved.. Therefore the scout never needed to appeal higher then District's board. Our board has stated that you need to believe in something higher then yourself, but have stated they don't care if it is a rock, tree or lamppost, you just might need a little more explanation as to why the lamppost is a higher entity then yourself, if that is what you believe. Still I wonder, if the boy had not attended a Catholic school, and had a Catholic priest as his witness if it would have turned out so well. But, I am certain that this board would have excepted your UU beliefs and the statements of your minister as equally acceptable also..
My experience was not as a youth, but rather as an adult leader.
The problem with going through the courts is that you need to find a specific law to base your case on. The Welsh case was based on the federal Civil Rights Act, as I recall, which required him to have BSA found as a place of entertainment or something like that. Because of that, a narrow definition would invalidate the case. It appears that in the case of the Randall trial which was based on the Unruh Act, the same problem applied. It appears that there is no law that requires a private organization to actually adhere to its own self-appointed rules and regulations.
In all court cases, BSA won the overall case on technicalities. But they were still found to discriminate.
I was a leader. I took a pack that was barely surviving and I organized it into a viable unit. Under my leadership, I insisted that each and every adult leader enroll in every training opportunity that was available to us; as a US Navy Chief Petty Officer, I could expect no less of those under my command. We went from barely surviving to being 100% in all aspects. Although we were a public school unit, we instituted a year-round program. When I was expelled, I informed a den leader that according to BSA my mere presence would irreparably disrupt the pack, her immediate reaction was, "But under your leadership we FLOURISHED!". Under my leadership, we repeatedly informed the pack at large of the religious emblem awards programs and actively promoted it, which was completely in accordance with my own personal religious values that calls for everybody to know everything they can possibly know about their own religious traditions.
When I took command, our pack did not have any Webelos program and it had merged the Tiger Cubs into the Wolf den, which had devastating effects on that den leader. I established our pack's Webelos program, taking command of it myself directly; that was only natural, since my best memories from my own youth as a Scout was from Boy Scouts. I also established a Tiger Cub program in accordance with BSA standards. At all the district meetings I attended, our pack was singled out as a success story.
At a point, the Cubmaster duties had been passed on to a couple. We were able to find a straw leader for Webelos, but he could not perform those duties because of his commitments to the YMCA Indian Guides program, so I performed the duties of a Webelos den leader, but always in accompaniment of at least two parents who were also officially registered as Members of Committee; my own presence was sanctioned by my younger son being in the den.
During all this time, I attended the district roundtable each and every month, first representing the pack and then later representing the troop that my sons were in. When I was attending to my duties with the pack, without my knowledge my pack leadership and our CO rep repeatedly petitioned BSA for my reinstatement. Later when I was representing our troop at the monthly roundtable meetings, the entire district volunteer leadership, without my knowledge, staged a "palace coup" demanding a resolution to my situation. As usual, the BSA professionals made promises to them that they then immediately broke; it' called "smiling them out the door", a practice that BSA is very practiced at.
For details, refer to my timeline file at http://dwise1.net/scouting/timeline.txt .
The lesson to be learned is to keep BSA as far away from your unit as is possible. The presence of this atheist never ever disrupted any unit, but rather the presence of BSA was extremely disruptive.
-
At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion' date=' as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above).[/quote']
And just exactly where in officially published BSA religious policy are those required? And while you're at it, what is the officially published BSA policy on defining or interpreting either "God" or religion?
For that matter, just exactly what in officially published BSA policy would require the expulsion of an atheist? Please be specific and quote the applicable publication. Please remember that a "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" did not exist in the 1990's, as testified to in court by the Orange County Council's Exec. But then the question I am pursuing here is whether such a rule has been added to officially published BSA policy. Though that would raise the question of how such a rule could possibly be squared with the rest of officially published BSA religious policy.
He also saw' date=' read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway.[/quote']Please read what I actually wrote. I read the DRP and, based on officially published BSA policy, found that I was in agreement with it. I would not have signed the application if I did not agree with the DRP, because that would have been dishonest. I still agree with it. Rather, it is BSA that does not agree with it.
So the question still stands about the current status of "belief in a Supreme Being." Does such a rule exist? Or, like in the 1990's, does BSA continue to appeal to a "rule" that does not exist?
You've just gone to great lengths to say that "God" probably does not mean to you what it means to me.Bullshit!
I did not ask if you believe in the definition that Christians have attributed to a very ancient word to great effect. What's wrong with just speaking English at face value?Officially published BSA policy says that your own religious standards do not apply to others not of the same tradition.
What part of that do you not understand?
I did not ask if you believe in the definition that Christians have attributed to a very ancient word to great effect.Bullshit!
Your very refusal to discuss the various possible definitions indicate your desire to force one particular highly sectarian definition.
You very clearly only want to allow a narrowly CHRISTIAN definition to that term. Hardly "absolutely nonsectarian" at all.
What part of that do you not understand?
What's wrong with just speaking English at face value?Because it is not specific enough. You can just mouth meaningless mumble-jumble that others can misinterpret.
Are you at all familiar with Monty Python's Flying Circus? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink?
In one skit, Eric Idle approaches another character (Michael Palin?) and intimates whether his wife engages in kinky sex though all entire through inuendo:
"Does your wife? Does your wife? You know ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean?"
Well, that was BSA attorneys' approach in the Randall trial. I was subpoened for that one, I was. At one point, the BSA attorney asked me about "God". Well, I was about my wits, I was, Gov'ner. I asked him what he meant by that, I did, Gov'ner. I said that I was confused by his question and I needed to know the official BSA definition of "God" that he was applying, I did, Gov'ner. I saw the plaintiff attorneys wake up just then, though sadly too late. I also saw the BSA defendent attorney back-pedel furiously to get himself out of that quagmire, he did, Gov'ner, glorious though it was to witness.
BSA's argument there is straight out of Monty Python. "What is 'God'? Well, we don't define nor interpret that, but we all know what that means, ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean? ... etc." Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
To give you a direct answer, a straight "English answer" would need to be given fully. The "usual English understanding of God" is far to nebulous and completely incompatible with officially published BSA religous policy.
What part of that do you not understand?
]
-
I am going against what some UUs themselves believe here.I would like to clarify here that while self-identified atheists are sometimes members of the UUA, and they are welcomed and respected for their individual beliefs, the UU faith is not inherently atheist (popular and erroneous opinions to the contrary notwithstanding). There are also Buddhist, Jewish, Wiccan, and Pagan individual members of the UUs. But the historical foundation of the UUs goes back to the Council of Nicea whereupon their ancestors in faith rejected the Trinity.When I ask a group of UUs today, what is the best way to characterize the UUs, I get as many different opinions as there are UUs in the group. I give them a lot of credit, every last one of them, for making well-reasoned and thoughtful statements about their faith. They really do know something about what they believe.
On the other hand, if someone wants to argue that UUs are space aliens........
UUs like to harken back to the Arian Heresy from around the Nicean Council, where Trinitarianism was chosen over Unitarianism. IOW, Unitarianism was basically a revolt against Trinitarianism. But that "heresy" (for what can you call a heresy that has been accepted as dogma?) died out at that time along with its supporting Scripture (outside of whatever has survived that purge).
Then in the 1400's or 1500's there arose in Transylvania (no, I am not kidding you) a Unitarian movement. Then later in the early 1700's or earlier, an English Unitarian movement arose. While it may have been inspired by the two earlier Unitarian movements, I do not know of any direct connections. That is the tradition that the modern UUA comes from. Joseph Priestly, the scientist who discovered oxygen, was also a Unitarian minister who had to flee the mobs in England and arrived in the American Colonies to found the first two Unitarian churches there; when our church was searching for a name, I suggested naming us after Joseph Priestly, the discoverer of oxygen, "for a breath of fresh air."
Though I remember one sermon in which our minister mentioned one region of England that the Church of England calls, "The Black Spot", since the Unitarians there are immune to all efforts of the Church to proselytize them.
-
Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition of "God"?... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.
Theists believe in literal supernatural beings called "gods". Non-theists, AKA "atheists" do not believe in literal supernatural beings.
Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God". Does that official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God" require belief in the supernatural? NO IT DOES NOT!
Khaliela, you have your own personal definitions and interpretations of "God" and "belief in God" and "Duty to God". Those are yours and you are bound by them.
They are not mine and I am not bound by them IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA RELIGIOUS POLICY. Is that becoming clear to you?
-
You need to get over it' date=' or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program.[/quote']
Is it? This is what the BSA actually says about it (the current Guide to Advancement, page 33):
5.0.5.0 Religious PrinciplesFrom time to time, issues related to advancement call for an understanding of the position of the Boy Scouts of America on religious principles. In the appendix (section 11), see the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (article IX), and clause 1, Declaration of Religious Principle, from article IX in the Charter and Bylaws of the BSA. The following interpretative statement may help to clarify this position:
The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion. Neither does the BSA require membership in a religious organization or association for membership in the movement. If a Scout does not belong to a religious organization or association, then his parent(s) or guardian(s) will be considered responsible for his religious training. All that is required is the acknowledgment of belief in God as stated in the Scout Oath, and the ability to be reverent as stated in the Scout Law.
See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording:
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in.
So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect.
So to tell the OP: "stop whining' date=' it's all their in black and white" is incorrect.[/quote']I respectfully disagree. Yes, it is indeed all in their "black and white", which is to say in BSA's officially published religious policy. The problem is that neither BSA nor the religious bigots who follow their knee-jerk reaction to agree to BSA's violations of its own officially published religious policy ever bother to actually look at that officially published religious policy.
Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can reach is that BSA knows full well what its officially published policies are, but those are not what it wants to impose. They really do want to impose their own religious ideas, members' own traditions be damned! Of course, they cannot declare this publically, because many charitable organizations, including many United Ways, themselves have requirements that they can only contribute to organizations that do not discriminate. So BSA keeps its "absolutely nonsectarian" rules and requirements on the books in order to parade them to donors, all while refusing to actually live up to those ideals.
Here's the situation I had seen in Orange County, CA. Orange County's United Way had a definite anti-discrimination policy in place and they presented it prominently to the public. Then when the Randall trial broke, they said that they had to wait for the court's decision. Then when the court decided that BSA was indeed discriminating, UW said that it had to wait for the final decision, but in the meantime their anti-discrimination rules mysteriously disappeared. At one point, our pack's ACM was at a UW presentation at his work-place and basically their position at that point in discrimination was that they arbitrarily chose which organizations to support, basically considerations of discrimination be damned! At present, I visited our UW website and could not find any mention of any anti-discrimination policies. I think that when the California Supreme Court's decision came through, our UW tried to claim that BSA didn't discriminate, but the decision was that BSA does indeed discriminate, it's just that they are not subject to the law.
In the meantime, United Ways across the state have withdrawn their support for BSA, making them far more honest and honorable than my own local UW.
-
What? You have never played the game of "God is whatever you say it is" with a BSA professional? Oh, you really have no idea what you're in for!qwazse: The sad part about this is if a kid thinks a particular stone is his salvation and is not disparaging his buddy's devotion to Allah, I'd count it as reverent.Why is that "sad"?
Now mind you, BSA acts without warning, expelling you before you ever know that any problem exists. That is how it happened to the Randalls, despite a unit den leader spoiling the surprise with a cryptic phone call. In my case, I suspected that something was up, so I initiated the call, which pulled our council's SE out of a meeting about me.
At some point, we arrived at THE GAME. He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing something about some non-theistic religious traditions, I offered an idea. "No, that's not it. But God is whatever you say it is." So I offered another well-considered idea and he again responded with, "No, that's not it either. But God is whatever you say it is." After a few more iterations of this nonsense, I stated, "Well, obviously my own ideas are 'God' are not the same as yours." at which point he terminated the conversation, obviously satisfied that he had gotten what he had wanted.
OK, am I the only one here to see this? I even raised it in subsequent letters asking about my review, which was delayed for over half a decade. Their game was to say, "God is whatever you say it is", but if you ever take the bait, then they just reject anything you have to offer. In the end, in my case, it was Kent Gibbs' own personal definition and interpretation and misunderstand of "God" that took precedence, not in any way my own religious tradition's. I was being judged solely by Kent Gibbs' own personal religious standards, not my own! Who here, even among the most stridently sectarian religionists, cannot see the fault in this BSA interpretation that Kent Gibbs personally imposed upon me?
And on that purely arbitrary basis, I was booted out of BSA.
ABE:
Sorry! Forgot about another game the Kent Gibbs loved to play. The Randall twins had first registered in Los Angeles County before moving down to Orange County. At some point along the way, the unit screwed up with the registration forms. BSA caught wind of this and did its utmost to take advantage of it, claiming that the boys never had been registered.
And so Gibbs' twisted abusive game began. "Oh, you never were actually registered! All you have to do is to fill out the registration form." Form is duly filled out. "Oh, this is not acceptable. But all you have to do is to fill out the registration form." Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. When the case went to trial, Gibbs and Orange County Council tried to continue to play the same sick abusive game, but the judge stopped them short. "Is this all that's the problem? OK! Give us a form and we can fill it out and be done with this!" Immediately, BSA started back-pedelling and making excuses.
OBTW, you may condemn Jim Randall for filing a lawsuit on behalf of his sons being discriminated against, but you must consider the facts. Jim Randall tried his best to resolve this matter without having to resort to legal action, but BSA blocked all his efforts at every step. Finally, it was BSA itself who instructed him to sue them, not imagining that he would take them up on it.
Our Bear den leader, still a friend, was guardian to a ward. He went to the same school as the Randall twins, though not the same school (for that matter, I'm not sure how she had come to our pack, but she was a stalwart leader). He is the one who, knowing the news (his guardian is Jewish, so perhaps like someone who's UU? *), invited the twins to join our pack. At the time, Council was doing its utmost to spread fear among the units, "The RANDALLS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well, the Randall twins were model Scouts. They went on to fulfill all their Eagle requirements. Their Scoutmaster told the press that he wished that all his boys were like them. But they were participating by a court order while BSA's appeal to the California Supreme Court was pending. Just as their Eagle Court was looming, the state attorney general pushed the court to make its decision. The California Supreme Court decided that BSA was indeed discriminating, but it was not subject to the Unruh Act, which was the basis of Jim Randall's lawsuit. That same decision was what BSA was waiting for to issue my own final expulsion along with a couple others.
The point is that our DE came to speak at our pack meeting after the Randalls had bridged over to Boy Scouts. He spoke about BSA being "under attack" and how they had to spend millions of dollars to defend themselves from the Randalls. Well, this crowd knew the Randalls. I remember parents muttering angrily, "What a waste!"
Why is BSA wasting so much money and bad publicity on unnecessary lawsuits that they and they alone create? And then, given that they've been found in court to discriminate, COs who have definite policies against such discrimination have no choice but to stop sponsoring a Scouting unit. The US military has orders to not sponsor units, not even overseas. BSA discrimination not only does not make any sense in light of their officially published policies, but it is directly detrimental to Scouting. Even enrollment has been declining within the past decade: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html
* FOOTNOTE: Apparently, a number of Unitarian-Universalists had been born Jewish. For example, there's an old joke about somebody who had passed away and was buried in a UU cemetery. The surprised response was, "But he didn't look Jewish!"
In my own experience, when our church moved into new quarters one committee member of Jewish heritage requested a special vacuum cleaner to be able to handle the stairs. So there I was on a painting party and she comes down the stairs with that portable vacuum slung over her shoulder. And without my glasses it looked like the block letters on the side of the vacuum said "DRECK", which, from my knowledge of German from which that Yiddish word came, I thought was a really weird name for a vacuum cleaner, "FILTH". Then when she came closer I could see that it instead said, "ORECK".
-
King Ding Dong, the answer must depend on what the policy is. If the officially published policy is so meaningless that you have to be subjected on all levels by whatever that particular BSA professional personally believes, then why even have an official policy? For example, on another forum is a member who is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN " who repeatedly spews out virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric. So if you are a Catholic and your BSA professional is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN ", then you have just been expelled from Scouting. Is that what you are arguing for? If not, then why even make that argument?Let's try this again.I need to know about changes to the BSA Rules & Regulations, Bylaws, Advancement Guidelines, Declaration of Religious Principles, etc, pertaining to religion that were made since the late 1990's. In particular, I am interested in learning whether the "belief in a Supreme Being" non-rule has been incorporated into officially published BSA policy. In other words, has that non-rule been turned into an actual rule? And if so, then where?
My own experience was from 1988 to about 1998. During that time, I became very familiar with those official publications and with the events of the time. However, I have not followed it since then, so I need to know what has happened in the meantime from circa 1995 to the present. That is the only reason that I joined here, which is not to say that I wouldn't mind sharing some of my knowledge and experiences.
Starting around 1990, BSA started expelling members for the expressed reason that belief in a "Supreme Being" is required. BSA spokesmen and lawyers even went so far as say that they wouldn't mind keeping those members as members, but they were forced to expell them because of this here "belief in a Supreme Being" rule. And yet nobody could ever find that rule and all requests to see it were deflected or simply ignored. Finally in the Randall trial, the judge ordered BSA to show him that rule and BSA had to admit to him that that rule did not exist.
So my primary question here is whether that non-existent "rule", which BSA even had to admit in court did not exist, has since 1995 been made into an actual rule.
The history of that phrase goes back to the early 1980's when it was created "to broaden rather than constrict the understanding of the phrase 'duty to God' (i.e., it was intended to allow for non-Christian understandings of deity)." (as BSA had told UUA President Dr. Schulz). Then in 1985 it resulted in the expulsion of Paul Trout, a Unitarian Life Scout. The bad publicity and hundreds of letters of protest led CSE Ben Love to reverse the decision, to reinstate Trout, to name that "belief in a Supreme Being" wording a "mistake", and to apologize for that mistake. Then about five years later, the exact same CSE Ben Love had reinstated that mistake and used it for the purpose of religious discrimination. BSA professionals and lawyers would even tell the public and judges that they wouldn't want to expell these people, but this here "belief in a Supreme Being" rule was forcing them to. Despite the inconvenient fact that that "rule" simply did not exist. Their other excuse was that the Mormon Church was forcing them to expell non-believers, but that's another issue altogether.
Even if a "belief in a Supreme Being" requirement were to exist, how could it be reconciled with BSA's other officially published requirements, such as BSA neither defining nor interpreting "God", "Duty to God", the practice of religion, that each member is to be judged solely by the standards of his own religious traditions, or that only a member's religious leaders can determine whether he performs his Duty to God?
Also, districts and councils never act independently in these matters. Control is very tightly centralized at National. DEs are required to report every single contact up the line (one of our DEs told me this). I'm sure that CEs are likewise required to report up to Regional who likewise is required to report up to National. In every case that I was familiar with in the 1990's, massive amounts of message traffic flowed up and down the chain repeatedly; nobody at Regional, Council, or District made any more whatsoever until being told by National what to do.
Also, your response is a non sequitur. My question has absolutely nothing to do with what individuals at various levels think and feel. Rather, it has everything to do with FACTS!
Officially published BSA religious policy is a FACT. We all know what it is, because we can go to the published documentation and read it for ourselves.
That the "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" was not an actual rule from 1985 to 1998 is a FACT. You could not find it anywhere in the published documentation and in court, Randall v BSA, our Orange County Council Exec, Kent Gibbs, after having repeatedly claimed to have this "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" and that that "rule" absolutely required him to expel Michael and William Randall, the judge directly ordered him to produce that rule, at which point Gibbs had to admit in court that that "rule" simply did not exist.
That such a "rule", should it actually exist, would directly contradict officially published BSA policy is a matter for discussion, though I think that the case of direct contradiction should be self-evident to all but the most self-deluded religionists.
The question that is open and which I have repeatedly asked is this: What has changed in officially published BSA policy since 1998?
That is a question about FACT, not about personal opinion.
-
No, that is not true.As long as don't declare you are an outright "atheist", you can pretty much declare anything you want about what you believe about "duty to God" in the oath and be a BSA member. Even an "agnostic" might not have a problem because he can simply declare what "duty to God" and "Reverence" means to him and that will pass for many units.At the inception of the BSA in 1910, it was commonly understood what was meant by "God" in the context of the Judeo-Christian belief of a Supreme Being. Many Scouters, like myself, still hold to this ancient belief. The Declaration of Relgious Principle has been with the BSA from the beginning and can be found in the first edition of the Boy Scout Handbook (Handbook for Boys - 1911, Ch. VI-Chivarly, p. 250). Nothing new.
OK, that is indeed what officially published BSA policy says. But that is not what BSA practices. Which is the source of all the problems.
If BSA is being so Christian, I wonder why they haven't bothered to read the Gospels to see what Jesus was supposed to have thought about hypocrites.
Do you like the Boy Scouts of America?
in Issues & Politics
Posted
Sorry, but I don't see where you get that interpretation. You read the next sentence, but have you taken the time to read the entire chapter? Galatians Ch. 5. My electronic copy is from King James.
As you read Galatians 5, you will notice that Paul keeps referring to "the law". Do you know what "the law" refers to? Do you even have any idea? Oh, that's right! You're the one who doesn't want anybody to know what words mean. You're the one who wants everyone to operate in ignorance.
That talk of circumcision should have been a clue. This letter was written early in Christian history at a time when Christianity had been a Jewish religion and now Gentiles were joining. As a result, there was a controversy over whether the Gentile Christians would also have to be Jews and follow the Law, which is Mosaic Law as given in the Torah, including the practice of circumcision.
Obviously, through straightforward reading of Galatians, "law" refers to Mosaic Law which Jews were required to follow and which Paul described as a prison from which Christ had freed them. The dichotomy that we see throughout Galatians is between living in and following the Spirit through faith or following the flesh through observance of Mosaic Law. Straightforward reading also shows that the Fruit of the Spirit can only be gained through faith in Christ and by walking and living in the Spirit.
So please tell us who has faith in Christ and walks and lives in the Spirit? Observant Jews? No. Non-observant Jews? No. Muslims? No. Hindus? No. The growing numbers of the unchurched, which includes atheists, agnostics, followers of no religion, and those who are just not interested in religious matters? No. Who else but a Christian could possibly qualify as having faith in Christ. And wouldn't it only be a sub-set of Christian denominations that practice walking and living in the Spirit?
I had concluded earlier (*** DISCLAIMER: Since this is a quotation, it has not been altered. Thus it includes the terminology that Eagledad has hypocritically objected to. ***):
To me, straightforward reading of Galatians supports my position. I cannot even begin to imagine how one could twist it to agree with your position.
Of course, it is entirely possible that there is a denominational theology that would support your position. If there is no other ultimate truth, Christians will interpret that Bible in any possible way that is needed for it to support their theology. And the massive splintering of Protestant Christianity and their myriad doctrines offers a clue how far they will take it. All I know is the interpretation that was given to me by fundamentalists and what I read in a straightforward manner in Galatians.
Interestingly, Galatians appears to also be the source of the doctrine that Christians are not subject to the Law and has led to their practice of picking and choosing which laws to follow.