A Question for Merlyn...

[Adrianvs 10]

Regarding the dogmatic materialists who attempt to rely on what they call reason...

 

 

In the words of G. K. Chesterton:

 

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

 

 

In the words of Blaise Pascal:

 

... Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack, before attacking it. If this religion boasted of having a clear view of God, and of possessing it open and unveiled, it would be attacking it to say that we see nothing in the world which shows it with this clearness. But since, on the contrary, it says that men are in darkness and estranged from God, that He has hidden Himself from their knowledge, that this is in fact the name which He gives Himself in the Scriptures, Deus absconditus; [is. 45-15 "Thou art a God that hidest thyself."] and finally, if it endeavours equally to establish these two things: that God has set up in the Church visible signs to make Himself known to those who should seek Him sincerely, and that He has nevertheless so disguised them that He will only be perceived by those who seek Him with all their heart; what advantage can they obtain, when, in the negligence with which they make profession of being in search of the truth, they cry out that nothing reveals it to them; and since that darkness in which they are, and with which they upbraid the Church, establishes only one of the things which she affirms, without touching the other, and, very far from destroying, proves her doctrine?

 

In order to attack it, they should have protested that they had made every effort to seek Him everywhere, and even in that which the Church proposes for their instruction, but without satisfaction. If they talked in this manner, they would in truth be attacking one of her pretensions. But I hope here to show that no reasonable person can speak thus, and I venture even to say that no one has ever done so. We know well enough how those who are of this mind behave. They believe they have made great efforts for their instruction when they have spent a few hours in reading some book of Scripture and have questioned some priests on the truths of the faith. After that, they boast of having made vain search in books and among men. But, verily, I will tell them what I have often said, that this negligence is insufferable. We are not here concerned with the trifling interests of some stranger, that we should treat it in this fashion; the matter concerns ourselves and our all.

[Achilleez 10]

I am not a "rancher". I have cows but not many. They are not my main source of income. I run a pallet recycling business off of my farm. When I drive out in the morning to collect broken pallets I stop in at the "Sip and Bite" for coffee. I am not a liberal. I support capitalism as a much more fair and freedom-bearing system. But I also do not like handgun ownership or capital punishment.

 

Yes, my son knows I am an atheist but he also sits on the council of the youth group at my church. I will support him in whatever he chooses to beleive in. I was a scout when I was younger, and I signed up my son at the earliest opportunity. He loves it.

 

I am here because although I am not officially a member, I am semi-involved with Scouting, and frequently socialize with parents of other Scouts, occasionally becoming involved with their events, like father-son camping trips. In addition, I enjoy discussing issues and politics on the Internet, and this is one of the most civil forums around.

 

That's who I am, that's why I'm here. If you feel compelled to attack me until I leave then I'll have no choice.

 

ps. thanks for the prayer, it couldn't hurt.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[Bob White 20]

Achileez, I do not deny your right to disbelieve what you choose.

 

I do not understand however why you think I have to respect your choice, just because you respect mine.

 

If your choice was to lie when mine was to tell the truth, would I be required or expected to repect your choice? If your choice was to steal when mine was to be honest would I be required or expected to repect your choice?

 

You have chosen a position that is polar opposite of my beliefs. I do not dislike you for that. I do not deny your freedom to make that choice. But, I do not agree with it nor do I respect you for it, and I no of no moral argument that would inspire me to, or any logic that would require me to.

 

Do not think that because you have no anchor in a belief in a higher authority that you have license to do as you please, and as long as you respect others they must respect you. This is precisely why the BSA feels that a person cannot grow fully without a belief in and service to God.

[evmori 11]

I do not understand however why you think I have to respect your choice, just because you respect mine.

 

Because it's the right thing to do!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Zahnada 11]

"I do not understand however why you think I have to respect your choice, just because you respect mine."

 

Despite my personal opinions of atheism, I respect the right of people to make that choice. It's their right, and our country is a stronger nation because we allow people to make those choices. So I respect Achileez's choice.

 

I think Bob is confusing a respect for the ability to choose (which is how I interpret the conversation) with a respect for the actual choice or the person making it. There is nothing about atheism that harms myself or my family and friends. It is not illegal. I respect the right that Achileez possesses in his ability to choose a religion, just as he respects my right to make that decision. We don't have to agree on the choice, but the freedom to choose is what's important.

[Adrianvs 10]

"It is not illegal. I respect the right that Achileez possesses in his ability to choose a religion, just as he respects my right to make that decision. We don't have to agree on the choice, but the freedom to choose is what's important."

 

 

Must we respect all choices that are currently legal?

 

It is one thing to respect an individual's human dignity or the virtues which they possess. It is another to "respect" an false belief or wrong action. I don't think the latter is possible. I respect many people with whom I disagree, but I cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong.

 

If you state that it is only the freedom to choose which is important and not the choices themselves, then you completely devalue all choices. If every choice is of equal value, then there is no point of choosing at all. I don't think that anyone here means that, but the words involved are heading in that direction.

 

Yes we can admire free will itself, but in order to praise right choices, we must acknowledge the existance of wrong choices. One necessarily exists if the other does.

 

Regarding the legal right to choose religion, it was developed to allow the free discussion of religious concepts, not to stifle them.

It was established so that people might converse and convert without walls to thought impeding the way. As a great thinker once said,

 

"Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it."

 

The first step in this is stating that you respect ideas which you believe to be wrong and expecting others to do the same.

(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[acco40 95]

Has our society become so polarized that statements like: "I am not a liberal. I support capitalism as a much more fair and freedom-bearing system." are made?

 

Since when did "liberal thought" preclude a belief in capitalism?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Adrian says:

 

It is one thing to respect an individual's human dignity or the virtues which they possess. It is another to "respect" an false belief or wrong action. I don't think the latter is possible. I respect many people with whom I disagree, but I cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong.

 

The Scout Handbook says:

 

A Scout is Reverent.

 

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

(Emphasis added. Actually I don't have a Handbook with me, and lifted the text itself from usscouts.org but then verified it at http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-503a.html, so I assume that this is taken verbatim from the Handbook. It certainly sounds familiar.)

 

Now, Adrian, as an individual you of course are not necessarily required to agree with the official explanation of the Scout Law as published in the Scout Handbook. However, as others have pointed out in other contexts, as a Scouter you do have an obligation to "role model" this behavior for the Scouts. And unlike some other "policies" that may or may not be implied by the Scout Oath and Law, this is right there in the handbook.

 

That being the case, it does not appear that you agree with the BSA on this important point. The BSA says a Scout "respects the beliefs of others." There is obviously an implication there that the beliefs in question are not shared by the Scout, otherwise there would be no need to say this at all. In other words, the Scout does not regard those beliefs as being correct, or to put it another way, he thinks they are incorrect, or to use your word, "wrong." He disagrees with them. And yet, he is obliged to "respect" them. (I am not talking here about things like treatment of gays or whether God exists. I am talking about basic religious beliefs, such as would divide Christians from Jews, or Christians who believe in the Trinity from those that don't, or Jews who think God requires us to abstain from pork or lobster, or to have our heads covered while praying, or to have only male rabbis, from those who don't.) And yet, Adrian, you don't. You "cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong."

 

(In the interests of full disclosure, this subject has been discussed in several threads in this topic in the past, usually with Rooster taking the same position you are taking. Obviously the issue is whether the BSA is using the same definition of "respect" that you are. But the language seems pretty plain to me.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Acco says:

 

Has our society become so polarized that statements like: "I am not a liberal. I support capitalism as a much more fair and freedom-bearing system." are made?

 

Since when did "liberal thought" preclude a belief in capitalism?

 

What Acco said. (I would say "ditto" but that has become appropriated by a certain talk-show host who I don't wish to be associated with.) I must have gotten so accustomed to liberal-bashing on this forum that this didn't even register with me when I first read it, but thanks for pointing it out, Acco.

 

Unfortunately I think the answer to your first question (rhetorical though it may be) is yes. That has to come with an asterisk in this case, as the writer of that statement is Canadian, and these labels do have somewhat different meanings in different countries. I do not know whether "liberal" in Canada has a legitimate "socialistic" connotation or not. I do know that it does not in this country (meaning the one I am sitting in), though there seem to be a lot of conservative commentators, and a few members of this forum, who do like to equate liberalism with conservatism because it serves their political purposes.

[acco40 95]

Touche!

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Oh, ye demon who prevents me from editing my posts, be gone...

 

I said:

 

...who do like to equate liberalism with conservatism because it serves their political purposes.

 

I suppose that was sort of a Freudian typo, since I was talking about some conservatives, but obviously what I meant was:

 

...who do like to equate liberalism with socialism because it serves their political purposes.

[Achilleez 10]

Yes, that statement was necessary.

 

Why? Because the first time I mentioned I was Canadian, me and my friends were called socialists.

[Bob White 20]

I respect the religious belief of others, as the Scout Law requires. What I do not respect, and am not required to respect, is the disbelief of others. I respect the religious choice of any person of any denomination, but atheism is not a belief or choice of religious belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Achilleez 10]

Well Bob White, how exactly do you define the word religion?

 

Because if "religion" means how you beleive that the world came to be, how life sustains itself, and how the universe works in general, then I HAVE made my choice. And that choice is to beleive in science. Just because it is not classified as a religion does not mean it deserves any less respect. If I beleived that the entire universe were sneezed out of a giant green nose and called it a religion, then would you respect it?

[Bob White 20]

I find your definition of religion simplistic, crass, and offensive which only helps to prove why I do not respect your choice.