Merlyn_LeRoy

AZMike writes: And yeah, what's up with the claim that religions are so used to not being criticized? Been on the Internet lately? "Lately," of course, things have changed. And I've seen lots of Christians whine when they lose their special privileges. 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"? Sure doesn't sound like religions are used to being criticized.

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.

Beavah writes: So in your opinion, Merlyn, da court system is the proper arbiter of what constitutes good science? No. Tell you what, I'll go back to my original statement, which was a response to you, anyway. Beavah wrote earlier: Ah, but in a public settin' would yeh stand up and call Muhammed a False Prophet, or da Jewish prohibition on pork a bunch of superstitious nonsense? I doubt it. I figure despite your protestations yeh are probably a fine and respectful fellow. I find in public settings it's nicer to share your own positive beliefs, rather than dissin' on someone else's beliefs in a negative way. Da problem with words like "myth" or "cult" is that their common-use meaning outside of academe is disparaging to those with deeply held religious or cultural beliefs. And, like it or not, angels are an aspect of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology, arguably also in Hindu and Buddhist faiths. Satan and fallen angels aren't quite as strongly held, but they are an aspect of Christian and Islamic theology and tradition, and yeh can find aspects of that belief in the Talmud in Judaism and in other faiths as well. I think stupid ideas (and particularly stupid ideas that are dangerous) should be pointed out as being stupid, whether they are religious ideas or not. Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor. Now, if people want to argue that stupid religious ideas should be treated differently from other stupid ideas, have at it. I think they should be treated in the same manner.

Peregrinator writes: And your theory is that only religious people do this? No. Scroll down to the story of Joseph Hofbauer. ... "The court ruled, based upon expert testimony, that Josephs parents had chosen treatment for their son that was not completely rejected by all responsible medical authorities and had sought accredited medical opinions when making their decision. Several studies have proven that the metabolic treatment Joseph received could control his disease and is not as toxic as conventional treatment." They went to trial, but the court ruled that their medical treatment had some validity. PS: to clarify what I mean, you'd need a court to agree that such-and-such a treatment was essentially useless, but the parents got off anyway. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Peregrinator writes: I took "rubbing water" as an example. Did you mean it to be specific? No. History is rife with other examples, such as patent medicines to help your kids sleep which contained alcohol and opium. You still aren't addressing my point. I'm not merely referring to quack medicine. I'm referring to quack medicine + successfully arguing that sufficient medical care was applied. Do you know of many examples in which religious people merely "rub water" on their children, pray, and do nothing else? I'm not terribly familiar with this phenomenon. Oregon only recently changed their laws so they can start prosecuting deaths like this: http://www.examiner.com/article/faith-healing-trial-begins-another-dead-child-oregon ... The Hickmans are members of the notorious Followers of Christ, a faith-healing church located in Oregon City, Oregon. The church preaches faith-healing and rejects modern medicine in favor of prayer and other spiritual practices such as anointing the sick with oil. ... Church members have a lengthy history of unnecessary childhood deaths resulting from a lack of medical care. The state medical examiner's office has estimated that in the past 30 years, more than 20 children of church members have died of preventable or curable conditions. ... It only took a lot of dead kids for Oregon to finally change the law: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2011/05/faith_healing_finally_oregon_l.html Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid? Surely you're familiar with the proliferation of alternative medicine practitioners? Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid? As in: Parent treats ill child using X child dies Parent is NOT convicted of child neglect (or similar) because they used treatment X I'm asking for an example where they were acquitted (or even never charged) in the death of their child. Do you have any examples of parents using alternative medicine, their child dies, and they get off scot-free? I can find quite a few if religion is involved.

Peregrinator writes: I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and praying and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care. Well, of course. Since only people who follow a religion (to a greater or lesser degree) pray, this is a tautology. But if you take out the "and praying" clause -- Then what? Are you saying that, if parents of a sick child just rub water on him/her, that this would be regarded as sufficient medical care? Where? Add the "praying" part, and, in most US states, the answer is "yes". But where is the answer "yes" without it? I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care. -- then you are quite wrong. Do you earnestly believe that medical quackery is the sole province of religion? No. Re-read what I wrote. "I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care." Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

AZMike writes: You are claiming a right to a worldview that requires certain postulates that only make sense if one accepts a non-materialist world-vew. No, I'm not. I'm saying stupid ideas should be pointed out as stupid, even if they're religious ideas. Religious people can (and do) this also (but typically only about other religions, not their own). 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. Platinga's attempt at sleight-of-hand regarding 'truth' is certainly not convincing to me. 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. Cite.

AZMike writes: But ultimately, arguing from religion isn't the only way to be a quack. You seem to have totally missed my point. I didn't say religion is the only way to be a quack, I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and praying and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care. One only has to look at those who vehemently oppose the vaccination of children, which includes a good number of secularists 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). 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. Well, my original statement was "I think stupid ideas (and particularly stupid ideas that are dangerous) should be pointed out as being stupid, whether they are religious ideas or not. Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor." 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.

AZMike writes: Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. 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.

Not deferring to religion gets you things like partial birth abortions and eugenics. Deferring to religion isn't the only way to be opposed to partial birth abortions and eugenics. 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.

I think stupid ideas (and particularly stupid ideas that are dangerous) should be pointed out as being stupid, whether they are religious ideas or not. Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor.

nldscout, are you saying the Northern Star council is trying to destroy the BSA?

eolesen writes: Merlyn, how do you explain how the existence of UU, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Sihk, and Scientology Scouters? Easy. The BSA's membership requirements are not coherent. All that the faith statement requires is a belief in a higher power. Atheism doesn't acknowledge that, agnostism and all of the others mentioned do. Incorrect. I'm an atheist and an agnostic. It's also possible for an atheist to have "a belief in a higher power" as long as that "higher power" isn't a god. So does that meet the BSA's requirement? Oh, and the BSA's own legal website says agnostics can't be members: http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/PETITION_FINAL.pdf "By reason of these values, the Boy Scouts do not accept atheists or agnostics..." Their FAQ is gone, but that also said atheists and agnostics could not join. Doesn't have to be monotheist. The way the BSA has phrased it, it does. But I've never considered their membership requirements to make sense. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

The atheist part is covered by the application: The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God [...] Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of [membership or leadership] The problem is, it's MORE than covered; the above also excludes agnostics (which the BSA has also said, at least on their legal website, cannot be members), and it also excludes polytheists, since it requires a belief in a single god, and it excludes some Deists and other theists who believe in a god but don't believe that god puts any obligations on people. So really, people need to say that the BSA excludes atheists, agnostics, Hindus, some Deists, some UUs, etc etc

But BSA rules say no gays, no athiest. I've only seen this in press releases, public statements, and the like. Where does it say this in the rules?

SeattlePioneer writes:

SeattlePioneer writes: I'm designing the program I want to build, you are free to do the same. Just clarifying your statement that your program would be "optimized for girls and for boys"; some would be excluded from the outset. (The BSA does the same thing, of course, when they say it's for "all boys" when it really isn't).(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

SeattlePioneer writes: It seems to me that paring a Cub Scout Pack and a Girl Scout or American Heritage Girl unit together is a good way to accomplish that purpose. That would allow the program to be optimized for girls and for boys. That would allow the program to be optimized for (straight Christian) girls (only) and for (straight theist) boys (only).

SeattlePioneer writes:

SeattlePioneer writes:

skeptic writes: And, of course, the nonsense of using A.P.Hill for free; BSA paid tens of millions of dollars to the government for each jamboree for support of various types, as well as building some facilities used by the base during the time jambo was not in session. The US government funded the BSA jamboree for about $8 million (1/3 of the total cost) last time it was at AP Hill. Even if the BSA lays out $16 million for a $24 million jamboree, that's still a government subsidy.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

If the GSUSA and BSA agreed to merge or have joint units in some way, would these units include or exclude gays and/or atheists?

Yes vol_scouter, show how all discrimination is the same, so there's no basis to criticize the BSA or the KKK for their membership policies.

Yeah, that Sally Ride really destroyed all that is good and true.

Good enough to have an award named after her: http://www.scouting.org/stem/Awards/Venturer_Supernova_Awards.aspx Not good enough to have been a den mother: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/sally-ride-american-hero_b_1697871.html