AZMike

"Lately," of course, things have changed. And I've seen lots of Christians whine when they lose their special privileges." I think most people "whine," or complain, to use a less value-laden term, when their rights are taken from them. Read any history books? You mean back when heretics were burned? Or just driven out? Or maybe just when I started this thread 3 years ago and wrote "25,000 fine in Ireland, death in Pakistan"? Like the Albigensians? They were executed - by the state, not the Church - largely because their repudiation of oaths and all cvil authority represented a direct threat to the state. Do you know how the non-Christians of the time deal with threats to civil order, BTW? "Sure doesn't sound like religions are used to being criticized." Gosh, I guess they were never martyred by the pagan Romans, murdered by the millions in Dachau and Auschwitz, murdered by the millions in Soviet Russia, murdered by the millions in Mao's China, murdered by the atheist government of Calles, murdered by the atheist government of Hoxha, murdered by the French Revolutionary Tribunals, etc., etc., etc. I think they are probably used to being criticized. Ireland does not have an official state religion, by the way, so a blasphemy law in Ireland is not a religious act, it's a civil one by the elected representatives of a republic. What do you think of the harsh laws against Christian free speech enforced by Canada's "Human Rights Council", or the German laws against home schooling by the religious? I'd still be interested in reading how you reconcile your atheism with your pledge of honor in the Boy Scouts, by the way.

"Ah, but that's why I think they need to be challenged at every opportunity; religions are so used to not being criticized, you end up with things like laws against blasphemy and laws that say praying is sufficient medical treatment. No other class of ideas gets such kowtowing, which makes society worse." Except, of course, for the obsession in left-wing political circles for same-sex marriage, where you get laws requiring Catholic schools to host gay clubs in Canada, or the U.S., obsession with sex without consequences, where you get the U.S. government requiring Catholic businesses to pay for abortifacients, sterilization, or contraception, in violation of their religious beliefs. Or the academic obsession with Marxism, despite its sorry record in history, and which has produced a generation of deconstructionalists and "queer theory" scholars. And yeah, what's up with the claim that religions are so used to not being criticized? Been on the Internet lately? Read any history books? BTW, I haven't read this whole dreary thread, so it may have been addressed already (if so, I apologize), but how do the rabid anti-religious/atheist members who post on this forum square their anti-religious beliefs with the Scout Oath which they teach to young people, and presumably recite along with the scouts (I presume most of you are active or former scouters), that whole "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God..." jazz. Do you just disregard that part? Do you accept only those parts of the Oath that you like, and dissemble on the rest? Do you just mumble the part about God? Do you consider this an integrity issue, or do you think that whole part of scouting is "just for kids"? Did you believe in God and religion once and no longer do so now, and so just repeat it out of habit, without meaning? Are you ever embarrassed about the disparity between your public actions and your private thoughts? Do you consider the disparity as something you can live with, just so long as the BSA may possibly change the requirement to profess a belief in God some day. Or are you open with the scouts and parents about your anti-religious stances? I'm not being facetious about this, I'm honestly curious about what some of you atheists think about this, and would be interested in hearing how you reconcile these two views.

"That in a nutshell is the essential conflict between religion and empiricism." There is no conflict between religion and empiricism. Empiricism has nothing to say about hypermundane claims. Two different spheres of knowledge. If anything, religion is more congenial to a religious view than a strictly materialist view, as that contains its own self-defeaters from an empirical viewpoint.

Sorry, forgot to post the map to which I referred. It's late and I'm tired. http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

"But LOOK AT WHO CAN REFRAIN FROM HAVING THEIR CHILDREN VACCINATED: the religious. There are religious exemptions in all states except California, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only about 20 states allow some kind of nonreligious exemption. This religious-only exemption is probably unconstitutional, by the way (see Welsh v. United States)." Looking at this map, I see numerous examples of non-religious (philosophical and medical) exemptions. So even an atheist goofball who doesn't want his kid vaccinated can find a way. If we look at some of the loudest proponents of non-vaccination, they include people who are not religious, unless you define religion as self-obsession (which would make Hollywood the most religious city on earth), or other goofy philosophical ideas - although probably no more goofy than Sam Harris's attempts at "philosophy." You don't have to be religious to have nutball ideas. I note that the BSA also provides an exception for anyone whose religious beliefs do not provide for vaccination (it is right there in the Personal Fitness Merit Badge Book: If meeting any of the requirements for this merit badge is against the Scouts religious convictions, the requirement does not have to be done if the Scouts parents and the proper religious advisors state in writing that to do so would be against religious convictions.) Maybe they should an exception for those who are non-religious but also ninnies, like Jenny McCarthy. Kind of a side-issue, though. As I said, there are numerous other stupid beliefs held by atheists and secularists in general which don't require religion, and many of those are deferred to for no reason, like the many academics who still hold with Marxism. "Notice I'm arguing against ALL stupid ideas; I'm pointing out that stupid RELIGIOUS ideas are often deferred to (for no reason). There are still states that have religious exemptions for treating sick children just with faith healing. I don't know of any states that have similar exemptions for quack medicine. " If you take a look through your phone book, you can probably find any number of ads for Chiropractic medicine, which is recognized by most state medical regulatory agencies, despite a clear lack of 1) acceptable scientific evidence, or 2) any religious connection. I think I can safely make the same claims for homeopathy. Your point again?

AZMike writes: Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. Merlyn: Nope. Sorry, you can't claim that, because a religion does X, that X is dependent in any way on that religion. That's a non-sequitur. I'm pretty sure God would like you to read the lines below what I wrote instead of taking the comment out of context, Merlyn... You are claiming a right to a worldview that requires certain postulates that only make sense if one accepts a non-materialist world-vew. Can't have it both ways, Merl. Moreover, the claim that you can assess or profess your arguments as objectively "true" is not possible, based on a materialist worldview, as Plantinga showed. Ultimately, a non-religious argument claiming for itself "truth" must be self-defeating.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

"Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions. I tend to disagree. So do you feel that non-religious folks can't experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc.? " I hope you do more than tend to disagree, but you misunderstood. Even if non-religious (which is not the same as atheist or agnostic), you do experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc., BECAUSE you are something more than what a materialist, non-religious POV posits you are, i.e., a flesh-bag of chemical reactions.

"I'll use the concept in the sense that I've seen it expressed by persons in these forums. In that sense it is access to medical care that is either paid for by tax dollars, or subsidized by tax dollars, or actually owned and run by government. This would, I guess, include any care that results from a variety of welfare programs, medicare, medicaid. Things like that. And, of course, the new law...that probably goes with the other stuff. I have read references to all these things at different times in the sense that they, to a variety of extents, are 'socialized'. Do you support these?" Could you be a little more specific (or at least, less vague)? Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?

Merlyn: "Deferring to religion isn't the only way to be opposed to partial birth abortions and eugenics." Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. The platform of the morality you argue from is one that recognizes the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human being. A non-religious viewpoint - that we are fulminating flesh-bags full of percolating chemicals slogging around with some sparks going off inside that may or may not offer the flesh-bag a picture of an objective reality outside the confines of said flesh-bag, and are the only the result of the random brute collisions of atoms - does not yield that viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions. Sparks going off in the brain can't give any assurance that ANY thoughts are "true," as Plantinga proved, not even (or especially) naturalism. "However, religion appears to be the only way that e.g. a parent could rub water on their child while mumbling pleas to invisible beings and successfully argue that they have given their child sufficient medical care. I don't know of any other rationale that might protect such a parent from criminal charges of neglegence -- if the parent was, say, a quack medicine promoter they wouldn't get away with it. But say it's some kind of religious ritual and way too many people think might be effective." And secularism is the only way that e.g. a mother could ask a doctor to sever her baby's spine with a pair of scissors as he or she exits the birth canal. I don't know of any other rationale that might protect such a parent from criminal charges of homicide - if the parent was, say, a stranger they wouldn't get away with it - but say it is the mother's right to choose and way too many people think it might be moral. But ultimately, arguing from religion isn't the only way to be a quack. One only has to look at those who vehemently oppose the vaccination of children, which includes a good number of secularists, or those who argue that genetically-modified foods are somehow unhealthy for you, or that any statistics on the negative aspects of having gay parents must be erroneous, or that nuclear power is riskier than other forms of power, or that fracking must be unsafe for the environment, or that animal testing cannot be applied to humans, that the labor theory of value is correct, that acquired traits are inheritable, etc,, etc. Which also raises the question - why should I have to defend the beliefs of a denomination that is not my own (and I'm not sure to which religious practice you make reference above - Christian Science?) I don't argue for the claims or practices of Islam, or Scientology, or Buddhism, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, just my own, although I defend the right of others to believe what they want, with an obvious exception of placing a child in harm, as you offered in your example. If you feel it is necessary for me to defend "religiosity" as an ideal, by the same token you would be required to defend the pedophilic atheism of Sartre, the sanguinary atheism of Robespierre or the Marquis de Sade, the power-worshipping atheism of Nietzsche, the decadent atheism of Onfray, or the genocidal atheism of Pol Pot, Mao, Hoxha, or Stalin. I doubt you follow the bent of any of those atheists, and I wouldn't expect you to defend all the "denominations" of atheism. To paraphrase the tired atheist wheeze, you believe in zero religions, I just believe in one more...

Depends on what you mean by "socialized medicine."

packsaddle: "AZMike, I certainly do credit religion with a modicum of emotion surrounding the abortion topic." Well, duh. packsaddle: "But with respect to eugenics, do you really think that is a result of the absence of religion?" The absence of orthodox Judaeo-Christianity? Oh, heck yeah. The absence of that thing that likes to call itself religion, or spirituality, or whatever, but is really just modernity wrapped in religious garb? Well, that thing does think very highly of eugenics, or abortion, or "Marriage Equality," or any other kind of claptrap. Eugenics was indeed quite the thing among liberal Christians in the early part of the last century, just as the fad for homosexual marriage (or marriage equality) is now. If you are willing to ignore traditional teaching and cut your theological fabric to the pattern of the times in the hopes of greater popularity, or creating heaven on earth, you tend to be very open to that kind of nonsense. In the 1920s, it started gaining favor among some members of the more liberal Protestant denominations, such as the Unitarians and Congregationalists, and spread (not all, by any means) to some of members of the "mainline" Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Evangelical Protestants largely stood against the evil of eugenics. The minister who wrote the quote you give below, who was also devoted to any number of other liberal causes, would have probably felt right at home protesting in front of a Chik-Fil-A, if they had any then. packsaddle: You might want to check out a little book, "Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" by Christine Rosen. It's published by the Oxford University Press and you can probably find a used copy cheap. While there was indeed a great deal of religious opposition to the ideas of eugenics, there were also some religious leaders who embraced it, "Christianity must be a religion less concerned about getting men to heaven than about fitting them for their proper work on earth." The internet is your friend. Here is an interesting link as well:http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_54-60.pdf " I am somewhat familiar with this "Internet" of which you speak, but as my only computer is a vintage Commodore Vic 20, it takes me some time to connect to it. Generally, my scholarship is based on "books." Such as Rosen's book, which I read a while back. It was not well-reviewed at the time, as I recall, as she focused mostly on the before mentioned denominations. It's pretty egregious to write what purports to be a history of religious reaction to Eugenics, and only devote a couple of paragraphs to G.K. Chesterton, surely the most vociferous (and gifted!) Christian apologist to oppose the evils of that movement, or to devote so little space to Pope Pius XI and his encyclical, "Castii Connubii (On Marriage)." which laid the bulwark for the Church's attack on the Eugenics movement in America and Europe. The stance taken against Eugenics by people like Bishop Galen and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany kind of has to be considered a real moral stance, since the Nazis killed people who contradicted them, don't you think? (Although we saw an example of that kind of progressive intolerance this morning, sadly.) BTW, if you still read books, may I suggest you devote some time to his landmark little tome, "Eugenics and Other Evils?" Look, you can even download it on your Internet Machine! http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308 Much better reading than the grim little eugenics articles by H.G. Wells. The author of the link you provide (who is primarily known for his writings as a Young Earth Creationist, BTW - a view I don't happen to share, although you might), even makes the same point - it was members of the progressive, liberal denominations that accepted Eugenics dogma, not the orthodox. In case you didn't happen to read all the article to which you linked. The same author makes his views even more clear in another article, also available on your Internet Thing-Um-A-Bob: Much of the opposition to the eugenics programmes came from the religious community. Conditions such as feeblemindedness and mental illness, they reasoned, could not have been inherited because these people were part of God's creation, and God stated in Genesis that when He created Adam and Eve they were perfect. The cause of these conditions must be something other than mankind's innate inherited genetic program. Catholics were especially critical in that they believed that man's spirit, not his body, is paramount, and God does not judge persons according to IQ tests or skull shapes, but according to his or her spiritual attributes. And many genuinely retarded persons were likeable, friendly, outgoing, and non-aggressive; a good example is many of those who are diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. Much of the criticism was against evolution itself; most eugenicists believed that humans came from lower beasts' and if this idea was wrong, then the very foundation of the eugenics movement was flawed. The conflict between Christianity and eugenics was also due to the latter's conflicts with the major doctrine of Christianity; that mankind through sin had fallen from his once high state, which markedly contrasts to the doctrine of eugenics, which teaches that mankind has risen from a lower state. The eugenics movement was directly at odds with both Christian and Jewish teachings, and this fact was not lost on those in the movement; many were openly critical of Christianity, and large numbers, including the Darwins (Erasmus, Charles and Leonard), Galton, Huxley, Davenport, Wells and Pearson were open agnostics. The founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, was not only an agnostic, but also openly hostile toward religion. 'While he tolerated Louise's (his wife) practice of religion in the home, he rarely missed an opportunity to gibe at the clerical outlook.' Those who advocated the eugenic approach called their opposers sentimentalists' and the 'natural ally' of the sentimentalists was 'the preacher'. Read the whole article here: http://ed5015.tripod.com/BEugenics72Bergman73Potter77.htm packsaddle, again: "I also note that in the days of slavery, the Bible was used to justify that 'peculiar institution' in the South and as a result there were attempts to breed slaves just you might livestock (shades of Dred Scott). " I note that the abolition movement was largely made up of Christians, while agnostics and atheists, with a few noble exceptions, either stood silent or actively supported that peculiar institution. While people like the Reverend Wilberforce fought to make he African slave trade illegal, people like Richard Dawkin's ancestors made millions off the blood of African slaves. Richard Dawkins lives in a 400-acre ancestral estate that was purchased at that price, and despite his claims that religion is responsible for slavery, I don't notice him offering to sell the place to pay reparations. Christianity is the first movement to declare a slave the equal of a free man, Christianity is responsible for the end of slavery in Europe, Christians (the Church Fathers, in fact) were the first to speak and write against the institution of chattel slavery and take direct action to end it, the largest slave rebellion in America was led by Catholics, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century was largely led by Christian ministers, who explicitly used biblical imagery to change people's hearts and minds. packsaddle: "But, AZMike, since you bring it up, what is your objection to eugenics? Do you think this is a bad thing? Why? " Gosh, surprisingly I object to viewing people as animals who can be bred or culled to enhance what someone decides is "racial hygiene." I don't think society or the state can decide who is fit to live or die, I don't think babies should be killed in the womb that protects them, I don't think they should be killed right after delivery, and I don't think they should be killed up to one year after birth at the whim of the mother, as some modern eugenicists have stated. I don't think we should be able to kill someone who is old because he no longer contributes to society (as another prominent "bio-ethicist" has argued), and I don't agree with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, that is appropriate to use abortion specifically to reduce the number of African-Americans in our society (as she lectured to the Ku Klux Klan, who responded with great approval), who wanted to create "a race of thoroughbreds," and who wanted "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." And anyway, I fail to find support in the Scout Oath or Scout Law for forced sterilization or murder of "the unfit," "the useless," or the racially "undesirable" - do you?

"Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor." Not deferring to religion gets you things like partial birth abortions and eugenics.

Can't have a tug-of-war 'thout someone at the other end of the rope.

"Personally I've never heard of the "sexual liberation movement." What is it? What I have heard of is gay people saying "please stop discriminating against us."" Unless of course you quietly express your own beliefs, or simply pray in their presence:

Some of the current U.S. military academy cadet class demographics, broken down by (among other things) Scouting involvement and Eagle/Gold Award members - http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf'>http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf (They're from Paul Ryan's site, but most congressmen have this on their sites.)

"Getting back to New Jersey State Senator Ray Lesniak -- who by the way I have met and who is a very-long-time member of the New Jersey legislature -- I don't think you (AzMike) should be throwing around terms like "NAMBLAesque". (NAMBLA, if anyone doesn't know, is the "North American Man-Boy Love Association.") The term "gay boys" is perhaps not one that lands gently on the ear, and I probably would not use it, but since a "boy" technically is someone under the age of 18, a person under 18 who is gay could, I guess, be called a "gay boy." I don't think the senator meant it in a "creepy" way as you claim. I will tell you what I do think is a little creepy though: When you read of someone making a most-likely innocent reference to "gay boys" in the context of opposing discrimination against them, and it makes you (AzMike) immediately think of NAMBLA and of the titles of gay-oriented child pornography videos or web sites. I don't know the names of any gay-oriented child-pornography videos or web sites, but evidently you do." Lesniak may well be a good person, and probably he made a bad choice of terminology, and as you say, I doubt he meant it to be taken in a creepy way, but that's what it is. I would object to his (and your) sexualizing a child by referring to him (or her) by a term that refers specifically to a sexual act. That's inappropriate. I'm obviously not the only one who was made uncomfortable by Lesniak's use of a sexual term in describing a minor, nor the only one who thought it sounded like "gay-oriented child pornography," as you phrase it, based on the many comments in the media on his phrasing. One need not be familiar with the titles of gay porn (although anyone who ever watched Monty Python would probably associate the term used by Lesniak with the title of a porn magazine owned by a pervert referred to in a Python sketch) not to be dismayed by Lesniak's bizarre choice of phrase. One would have to live a life as cloistered and removed from the modern world as Rebbeca of Sunnybrook Farm NOT to recognize the term used by Lesniak as one that is common in gay porn, as you acknowledged. It is a sign of the sexualization of children within popular culture, and the normalization of such identification, that is part of what made Lesniak's comment so obnoxious, even as he probably did not realize the extent to which such sexualization has colored his view of the world, and of what are acceptable ways to refer to children. I appreciate the fact that you are, as you claim, innocent of the ways of gay-oriented child pornography, as well as the fact that most gays would cringe and recoil with disgust at you for linking the words "gay" and "child pornography" as you have done. You know what NAMBLA is, so I find it a little far-fetched that you have never heard the term "gay boy" used in the context of someone who wishes to molest boys. As someone who should have at least a moderate acquaintance with youth protection, you might need to educate yourself on such things. If you would want to combat evil, you need to know something about how it works.

It would depend on the content of the letter, I suppose. If you have the courage of your convictions, and state that you no longer wish to be an Eagle Scout because of their evil, discriminatory ways, fine then. You have crossed the Rubicon, burnt the ships, and made your choice. I don't agree with your opinion, but you had the guts to renounce something you used to be a part of. National should send them a polite letter honoring their wishes and informing them that any record of them being an Eagle or Scout will be expunged from the records, and the medal you sent in will be destroyed. If this is just an empty gesture done to attract some media attention, and you send the badge in but plan to ask for it to be returned later, then what was the point? You're another John Kerry. Keep your medal at home or in a safety deposit box and put it back on when and if the BSA trims it's moral fiber to fit your personal specifications. If you follow this path, then your gesture was an empty one, and you're nothing more than a parlor panther, in Tom Wolfe's memorable phrase.

Chuck Norris has played a bad guy, in "Way of the Dragon" opposite Bruce Lee. And its nice that he will send out Eagle Scout congratulatory letters.

Sounds like they are just reiterating the current policy: Don't ask, don't tell.

That activity book has a really creepy cover.

Also, some investigative reporting on the possible use of Ernst and Young CEO James Turley as a stalking horse by the Obama White House to oppose BSA policies, by none other than...Chuck Norris: http://www.freedomcongress.org/america/2012/06/is-obama-creating-a-pro-gay-boy-scouts-of-america/

"I was informed that it is cheaper, and sturdier, to take the current BSHB, got to Staples, and get them to spiral bind it. " Huh. Would that be sturdier than the current spiral bound edition, which seems even flimsier than the regular bound one? If so, I may try it with a test copy.

No, and not relevant to that, but looking around on his website I found the following interesting info on the # of Boy Scouts in the USAF Academy Class of 2015 (26% of cadets were Boy or Girl Scouts, 12% were Eagle Scouts or GSA Gold Award. http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf In the West Point Class of 2015, out of 1,261 cadets, 445 were Scouting participants and 160 won the Eagle Scout or Gold Award. http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usma_2015.pdf That doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread, I just thought it was interesting and a nice thing to read.

Hal Crawford: "How is the phrase "gay boys" "NAMBLAesque"? Please explain." It sounds creepy as all get-out. It sounds like the title of a porn DVD that would be found in a search warrant of that creepy guy who lives down the street from you. It sounds like a pay-website whose server is in some central Asian nation where the FBI can't find them. Dude. RemeberSchiff - sorry, I didn't know. Was Glenn not a Boy Scout and claimed to be?

I also note that a Democrat NJ state senator has refused a BSA honor because they do not accept "gay boys" (his NAMBLAesque words, not mine) : The Boy Scouts of Americas policies on openly-gay members have frustrated gay rights activists and liberals for quite some time. Recently, the organizations decision to continue its ban on homosexuals has added fuel to critics fire. And a New Jersey state senators decision not to accept an award from the organization due to these issues is likely to further stoke the debate. Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) is refusing to accept a nomination for an award from the Patriots Path Council, a local Boy Scouts troop. He told 1010 WINS, a regional radio station, that he is troubled by the Boy Scouts stance on gays and, thus, could not bring himself to accept an honor from the group. I was grateful for their thoughts and I do respect all the good works that the Boy Scouts have done, Lesniak said. I was a Boy Scout as a matter of fact, but I am very troubled by their exclusionary policies towards gay boys. At the center of his issue with the exclusionary policies, Lesniak said that damage could be done to young men who he believes have no control over their orientation. Its not their choice, its who they are and no good can come from them not being accepted for who they are, he continued. Theyre a good organization, they do great things, but they could do even greater things if they change their policy and allow gay boys to participate in their activities. The Patriots Path Council released a statement following Lesniaks refusal, describing its diverse membership pool. While the organization is disappointed with the senators decision, leaders wrote, We fully understand and appreciate that not everyone will agree with any one position or policy. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nj-state-senator-refuses-award-from-boy-scout-troop-over-its-exclusionary-policies-towards-gay-boys/