Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Eagledad writes:

But we can all go to bible or what ever religous guide you choose and have the same basic guideline. One thing about the three major religions is the moral code is basically the same.

 

So Eagledad, should polygamy be legal or not? Marriage is a pretty basic social construct, and if the big 3 religions are basically the same, then Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims should all agree on polygamy, right?

 

This illustrates why I think arguing for laws based on religious precepts are much worse than arguing for laws based on almost any other basis - with religion-based laws, each person has their "answer" furnished by the ultimate authority figure, and if they conflict with someone else's religion-based law, there is no way to compromise. One person says "polygamy is not allowed because [my] god says so", and the other says "polygamy must be allowed because [my] god says so", and there is no way to reconcile these two positions. From the point of view of at least one of them, "god's laws" will be violated.

[Bobanon 10]

Old Grey Eagle,

 

After I read your response I did a little digging and found that it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said We have religion to keep the poor from murdering the rich.

 

Karl Marx said basically the same thing with his maxim about religion being the opiate of the masses.

 

One of the biggest problems the communism faced was that it sub-planted catholicism with essentially the same autocratic rule in that one cannot believe anything but the RCC or the communists (respectively).

 

 

EagleDad on the idea that religion is necessary for society I found this item:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith... We need believing people" -- Adolf Hitler

 

An organized religion, especially one acceptable to the State is the perfect way to keep the populace in line.

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I do not believe your biggest stick theory. Man is capable of building a soceity without religious influence.

[SaintCad 10]

bobanon, please do not confuse lack of a spiritual guide with atheism. Buddists (I believe) would be technically atheists but they have spiritual guidance. I'm sure all of those people you mentioned have a belief in something higher than themselves whether it's God, the Great Spirit, ancestor kami, or kismet.

 

2 Sam 1:26

[evmori 11]

Ed writes: "A public school chartering a BSA unit is not establishing a religion or making a law establishing a religion. "

 

And this is where we could get into a discussion about what, exactly, constitutes an "establishment of religion." I'll be the first to agree, interpretation is key. But this is quite different from your previous assertion that "The Constitution doesn't say a thing about the separation of church & state.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say the church & state must be separate? It says the state must not establish a religion. It doesn't say the state have religion in it.

 

Yes it is all about interpretation.

 

DanKroh,

 

Define family values?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bobanon 10]

Merlyn,

The Founding Fathers knew first hand just how bad religious institutions could muddle things up. Thats why the new government was set up as a secular government protected from religious influence. Sadly by 1801 religion reared its ugly head with the 2nd great awakening to lead us to where we are today.

 

EagleDad righto about Constantine. He needed one religion to bring the Empire under. Constantine himself was a follower of Mithra, (he did convert to Christianity on his deathbed). I had wondered why he chose Christianity over Mithra, and through research I found but his mother was a Christian. Apparently she was pertty well taken with the new religion for she financed teh Church of the Holy Seplucher in Jerusalem, and teh Church of the Nativity in Nazareth.

 

At the Concil of Nicea Constantine locked the early Chruch followers in a room and basically told them to come up with a book, (the bible) and to be quick about it or he'd kill them and get someone esle to. Needless to say they were quick about it. Constantine was a pretty hard no-nonsnese guy.

 

Constantine knew the Empire was in decline and he needed a way to keep power and what better way than through one central religion.

 

This leads us to your point of view that man is basically bad or evil and cannot be counted on to do the right thing when no one else is looking. This means that man is basically stupid as a sheep and needs religion and a clergy to save him from himself. I disagree completely with your view.

 

SaintCad I am not confusing anything with atheism. I am certainly not confusing Buddhism with atheism.

[Bobanon 10]

Ed Mori,

 

YOu wrote:

"Where in the Constitution does it say the church & state must be separate? It says the state must not establish a religion. It doesn't say the state have religion in it."

 

While the Constitiution does not specifically state a "separation of Church and State" it is the spirit of the document. The U.S. Constitution broke the lock traditional religions had on government to enforce their practices. In American Colonies for example all had to pay a tax supporting the Church of England whether or not that is where they attended. Say you are a Baptist, how would like to pay a tax supporting the Catholic Church, or the Presbyterians? Not very much I imagine.

 

The Founding Fathers took the yoke from around the neck of people in teh new country. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. I for one am glad there is no state religion I have to pay taxes to. The IRS does more than enough damage as is. And I would very much dislike paying into something I completely disagree with and have absolutely no use for.

 

[evmori 11]

Bobanon,

 

How does a public school chartering a BSA unit establish a religion? How does this violate the Constitution?

 

I love it when people say it's the "spirit" of the document! Reminds me of the hanging chad election when people tried to interpret the "spirit" of the voter! What a farce!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh 11]

Ed asks: "Define family values?"

 

Well, there's the rub, isn' it? Lots of people like to throw the term "family values" around as a buzz phrase, but few of them ever pin down a concrete definition. And your definition of "family values" probably isn't the same as mine.

 

But here's what I consider to be "family values" (in no particular order):

Loving and caring for one another; kindness to each other and those around you (including being charitable); emotional support and acceptance of each other; teaching children to be ethical/moral, socially aware, and emotionally healthy; honesty; communication

 

There might be others that I have not thought of right at this moment, but I think that is a good representation of what I believe makes a family function as a family.

 

But as you are the one making the implied assertion that homosexuals cannot represent "family values", what exactly is it that they cannot do?

[Bobanon 10]

Ed I for one am glad you are not a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

 

Besides Ed, where did I mention anything about religion and public schools sponsoring Scout units? I'm not sure what you meant or where you were heading with that accusation but I am not opposed to public schools sponsoring Scout units. I bet that you hate hearing that as it will upset your preconceived notions about me.

 

On the idea of separation I want to see the Federal, State and Local governments turning a blind eye to anything and everything religious. This keeps the religious field safe for every group, not just a single group or few choosen religious groups. I would think this is what all would want.

 

I do realize that there are those decrying separation as a fallacy. Or that the Founding Fathers were anything but Christian, and intended this to be a Christian nation. That is all a flat out falsehood Ed, and nothing more than a lie. As proof see which Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanomously approved by Congress on June 7, 1797. So Ed, as you see there is no basis to the idea that the U.S. was begun as a Christian nation. That is nothing more than a common myth of our time.

 

 

Ed I would also like to see your definition of family values. I know that gets thrown around a lot these days. Lets look at some of the statistics.

 

1. The media frequently reports that 50% of American marriages will end in divorce. This number appears to have been derived from very skimpy data related to a single county or state. However, it appears to be reasonable close to the probable value. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction." (Information Obtained From - "Divorce statistics collection: Summary of findings so far," Americans for Divorce Reform, at: http://www.divorcereform.org/results.html)

 

And the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate of all areas. "Bible belt has nation's worse divorce rate," CNN.com, 1999-NOV-12. Online at: http://www.cnn.com/ (www.google.com had a cache copy as of 2000-FEB-11. The page is not directly accessible)

 

Looks to me that divorce could be considered a family value these days. And Ed what is divorce other than serial polygamy.

 

 

2. The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". (Information Obtained From - Fresh Thinking Needed on Divorce Issues," Jesus Journal, at: http://www.jesusjournal.com/jj_issues/

 

I do believe Ed that I could go on with this issue, but surely you get the picture.

 

 

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>This means that man is basically stupid as a sheep and needs religion and a clergy to save him from himself. I disagree completely with your view.

[Bobanon 10]

EagleDad,

you wrote: "I go back to the Scout Law and Oath. One set of guidelines for which everyone can agree to behave." I agree, however I think where we differ is that I believe that moral or ethical behavior comes naturally to man if there isn't already some social mores in place.

 

And too EagleDad you were right with your "Reason" is what seperates man from animals." Eacatly! And I couldn't agree more. By and large I believe that man's ability to reason through problems also assits in reasoning through moral issues.

 

I am not anti church, for I beleive that we need to come together is some sort of communal activity. It gives us all a sense of being part of the group (society),and it leads to altruism, which is the highest human endeavor in my opinion. I think the notion of altruism is why so many former Boy Scouts stay with the program as adults. I know that I feel I owe a debt for the men who provided adult leadership when I was a boy.

 

On the issue of separation of church and state. You are half right. Religious persecution was part of the reason for some immigration to the Colonies. However, the other half was the being forced to pay taxes to support the Church of England. This really rubbed many the wrong way. And to tell you the truth I would think people would want the government to stay as far away from their own churches as possible.

 

Years ago in college I took an immigration history course. Very interesting, and it showed just how much disdain there was among the various immigrant groups in the 18th Century. Now, during that time most all immigrants comign to the American Colonies were British. When the Scots-Irish immigration started in the late 1730's - 1740's there were several colonies they avoided. They avoided Virginia because of the great Church of England influence, and they avoided the New England colonies because of a dislike for the Puritans. They did make landfall in the Carolinas, Georgia, and in Pennsylvania where the Quakers welcomed them.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

It was stated that the BSA has the "appearance" of a religious organization.

 

Why is it like a religious organization?

 

It requires its' members to believe in God.

The BSA's oath or promise states "duty to God".

One part of the BSA's Law is "reverent".

 

This is not truly evidence of a religious organization but it is close enough to make a call.

 

The stuff regarding public schools, the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court rulings will only make this longer, so I won't risk it.

 

FB

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[BrentAllen 10]

Ah, yes, the famous Treaty of Tripoli. We all remember studying that famous document in history, don't we? It was SO important in the history of our country - trying to stop the Barbary pirates from raiding our ships.

 

Hey Bobanun - why not show the entire sentence? Well, I guess we all know how well you do at performing research. Since those anti-Christian websites only list partial statements out of context (much like the Rumsfeld statement), here it is in its entirety:

 

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

So they passed a treaty saying the United States was not a Christian GOVERNMENT, which is true - it does not dispel the fact that the country was formed as a Christian NATION. By the way, the wording of the treaty was to try to prevent the situation from turning into a Holy War between Christians and Muslims. Our government has no religion - the US is not a Christian government, so our government did not have any hatred toward a Muslim country. The sentence just stated that - nothing more.

The treaty lasted for all of 4 years, and subsequent treaties did not contain that language.

Got any more "proofs" I can dispell?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Fuzzy Bear writes:

It was stated that the BSA has the "appearance" of a religious organization.

 

Why is it like a religious organization?

 

Because the BSA has said in court that it is a religious organization, and courts have ruled that the BSA is a religious organization.