packsaddle

Lisabob, I wish you could have met NJCubScouter. He had a great sense of humor.

The Scout, Ahem, this weekend is a religious observance based on a human sacrifice for some of us. And what, I may ask, does the doctrine of 'transubstantiation' mean in your mind? As I understand it, when you drink that wine and eat that wafer, it literally DOES change to the human blood and flesh of Jesus, not symbolically, not metaphorically, really. But Ooooooooo devil worship! Now THAT's interesting! Unless you're not really talking 'bout the big guy, you know...the head honcho of fallen angels. If you're just talking minor demons, then it's still interesting but not any moreso than, say, Loki or some other mythological character. There are many people I have spoken with in this area that KNOW a place at a nearby lake, where devil worship takes place. I've been there and I've seen the evidence. My students are always impressed when I take them there. It is a stone circle, originally constructed by the CCC (proof enough, in itself, of devil worship, I suppose ). But scattered all around the fire pit are remnants of animal sacrifices, bones mostly, chicken - it looks like. And we've even found photos of the leader lying around. He's old, with glasses, moustache, and a white devilish goatee. I think he was a colonel or something. But like I said, people in this area, some of them at least, really BELIEVE this stuff. They KNOW from no evidence whatsoever, that devil worship happens there. How? Because someone told them. They are so susceptible to superstition and fable, and they want so badly to know something absolutely, that on faith alone, they will get angry and want to fight if I suggest they may be mistaken. And we wonder at the Taliban, the explanation is right in front of us.

Lisabob, Aw heck! I tried and tried to get through to point that out and Trevorum's connection was working and mine wasn't. SSScout, I think I understand what you are trying to say and while it does seem that faith is a mercurial concept for many who profess one flavor or another, I tend to share Melyn's view of atheism. THAT conclusion is one that logically cannot be attained through revelation or through any component of faith. And if one's logic and evidence has led to the conclusion that there is no god, then only better evidence and reasoning can shake it...logically. However, I can see a situation where a person chooses to set reason aside for any number of causes, perhaps under some extreme emotional stress, and 'pretend' to regain faith in the supernatural. This pretense might actually give some psychological relief to them. But that original line of reason that led to the atheist conclusion would remain unchallenged. And I would argue that underneath the superficial veneer of pretended faith...would remain a rational person of atheist conviction. ASM915, does it really matter who The Scout is, or his age, or any of those things...as opposed to the IDEA he seems to have about religious fundamentalism. I see his personal features as relevant only to explain how he attained the idea, perhaps to measure how strongly he holds it. But, given what I've read, I don't see this forum as a means of changing HIS mind, only to attack the idea if that is what you have in YOUR mind.

OK, The Scout, here are a few tidbits from our founding fathers, regarding our alleged 'heritage': Jefferson, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of 'nothings'. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise...without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence." And another from Jefferson, "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." And another, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Or Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." Or Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." then, "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" and then, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" I can give you more if you're interested. Oh, what the heck, I'll throw a few more in just for the halibut;): Jefferson, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can be acted upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." or, employing the forementioned ridicule, "The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." or, remarking on the university he founded, "A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution." or, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." and again, "The priests of the different religious sects...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live." Man, why can't I think of stuff like this?

Dan, I understand what you say but I want to let you know, in spite of it all, you and yours are welcome at our campfire any time. Sometimes people can't empathize until they've walked that mile in someone else's shoes. Back in the early '50s my family took a 6-week camping trip around the continent. One of my vivid memories was a night of fun with a bunch of other kids around a campfire at a wayside beside the Columbia River. There were numerous other families camped there as well. And my family shared the hatred some people showed to those other families, our car and tent were vandalized during the night, just like the rest of them. The other children merely shrugged, they said it happened to them a lot. I think about that often. They were, I think, what some might have called, "gypsies", but in fact were just poor people who traveled to find migrant work. I was already familiar with prejudice, growing up in the South, and this showed me it wasn't merely a matter of skin color but of any difference that a prejudiced person can identify. What a shame.

If we merely read the subject title of this thread, "RE: Politics and War", I think discussion of any war is germaine, including Vietnam. LongHaul was definitely thinking about Iraq when he started it but it is not clear that he wanted it confined to that conflict. For what it's worth, I'll wait to see what Gonzo1 finds before I comment further on the 'winning or losing' issue. I do note, however, that Lyndon Johnson's mushroom cloud commercial (which I remember vividly - as a Goldwater supporter - because of my training as a child to duck and cover) doubtless did help defeat a good man, Barry Goldwater. In defense, Goldwater, as I remember did say something to the effect of being willing to consider use of nuclear weapons on N. Vietnam. But it was a campaign tactic that was picked up later by Lee Atwater and then honed to a fine art by the current crop, especially during the Reagan and later administrations. I think the only two presidents since Eisenhower that did not lie to the people were Ford and Carter. Thinking wistfully, if only Ford had not pardoned Nixon.... But the lies of this administration, while not as stupidly criminal as Nixon's, have been IMHO even more damaging to the country, partly because we DID have such higher expectations when they came into office. And...remember, the mushroom cloud thing resurfaced also, this time from Dr. Rice, herself, http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ Regarding the media: sometimes the power of a photo or a quote, widely distributed, is its ability to accurately communicate an idea. Perception, as is evident in this thread, is left to the recipient and his preconceived notions.

Gonzo1, while you're doing research I'll hijack the thread with something more professionally-related. First, to understand what we did a couple of weeks ago, take a look at this: http://www.avirtualdominica.com/thelake.cfm also: http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2000/jun/17/dominica You have to realize that this island is extremely vertical and if you leave the coast everything is very, very steep. So on the day we were going to do this hike, an all-day extreme trek, I was clamboring down our steep steps from our cabin in the rain when...slip, BAM! My feet slipped out from underneath me and I went down onto the rock...HARD! The pain was exquisite and I knew that at the least I had badly bruised my coccyx. Every uphill step, no matter how small, was really painful. But...it's only pain and so I took my group on this trek, LOL. It still hurts but a lot less, so I guess I didn't break anything. And the lake, it was fantastic...and the valley of desolation, and the mountains, and the razor sharp ridges and the rain and the mud and Titou Gorge at the end and the hot springs. The pain was well worth it, no doubt at all. THIS is where we should have our campfire. Edited part: Oops, typo. Sorry (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gonzo1, I suggest a short exercise. List the original military and political objectives that were in place when the Vietnam War started. Pick your starting date, whether during Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson, but don't go past the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Now explain to me how those objectives were successfully achieved. If you can do that - show that a simple majority of the objectives were achieved - at the price we paid, and if you still believe we won, I'll consider your claim. As for Speaker Pelosi, if she vanished off the planet as I write this, her district would probably replace her with someone equivalent. The new Speaker, whoever it was, would probably irk you in an equal manner. This is the basis of my premise that when you aim your ire at Pelosi (whoever), it ought to be aimed at the people who elected her (whoever). They are the ones who chose their representative and they are the ones who helped set the current political structure. As someone (was it you Gern, Hunt?) said, we get pretty much what we deserve. Gonzo1, although we do not share all views on all matters, for you right now it seems that you think the glass is half empty. Although perhaps for different reasons, I couldn't agree more.

I wish terrorists actually did have a single organization and a political unit (country) of origin. They don't. Instead we have the SLA, the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kosinski, etc., and their counterparts in numerous other countries. The terrorism war has been going on for as long as people and societies have existed. But since we did identify the 9/11 terrorists, I would have been much happier if we actually had gone after them and gotten them. We didn't. We diverted treasure and blood to Iraq. And now the terrorists that we didn't get are coming to us in Iraq. If anyone really thinks this is a good thing, or somehow optimal, I'd love to read the explanation. However, Iraq may be many things but it isn't Vietnam. The American people might have bought a lie in both cases and the American people might have made poor electoral choices in both cases. But Iraq and Vietnam are quite different and the failures of Vietnam are neither identical to - nor related to - the failures in Iraq. Ultimately, the American people are responsible for both debacles. Gonzo1, I have to admit I'm reluctant to call this war one way or the other as I think the answer is going to wait for all of us until its conclusion, whenever that occurs. THEN we can argue more intelligently over whether we won or not. Likewise, in retrospect, it is tough to compose an argument that we WON in Vietnam but there was PLENTY of argument at the time, right up to the last days. War, as the saying goes, is politics (diplomacy) by other means. I heard Dr. Rice say this and I think she was correct. War and politics, in our political system, are inseparable. A politician will always be commander-in-chief. The military will always answer to the constitution and their civilian bosses. And the American people will get exactly and precisely their electoral due, for better or worse. Exactly as it should be.

Gonzo1, hello again. Students always put me in a good mood. I guess every single one of us has a personal view of this controversy and that is part of the problem itself. If I were to label your approach I would apply the 'fundamentalist' label because it attempts to take the literal meaning of the regulation and apply it in the strictest sense. That would be fine, of course, except that the regulation is not clearly written - it allows some different interpretations. I will only comment on a couple of those. For some reason BSA actually DOES allow membership by persons who do not believe in God. Some of these BSA members are called, 'Buddhists'. I actually support this while recognizing that to allow Buddhists as members, BSA has to relax the strict interpretation of their DRP and the Oath. On this basis alone, the 'fundamentalist', absolutist approach is already rejected by BSA itself. So the thing called, 'God' in the DRP or the Oath is not necessarily the Christian 'God' but (for BSA purposes) could actually be a sacred 'rock' (thinking about the BSA statement on 'rock worship'). This is a logical conundrum for the fundamentalists and absolutists because BSA itself evidently interprets its own policy in very 'flexible' terms. The fundamentalists and absolutists are still free to apply their view to themselves but they are not free to apply their view to others because they have been 'trumped' (to use your card game analogy) by BSA itself, the real 'higher authority' in this case. However, by opening the DRP to such interpretation BSA is showing a desire to be inclusive to the point of liberal interpretation of their own DRP and Oath. While I am at a loss to explain why BSA rejects Wiccans as COs unless it is based on a profound ignorance of Wicca, or worse, prejudice, the questions that remain are: how far can the organization go in this liberal interpretation? And if we have gone as far as rock worship, then why exclude anyone? (not that there's anything wrong with rock worship ) Why not remove the DRP if it's being widely ignored anyway? Why not remove the word, 'God', if it is being liberally interpreted or, worse, ignored, anyway? Why not indeed? My answer is pragmatic. If we already ignore this stuff (and I sympathize with desire to remove dead weight), it is just as easy to keep the status quo which is a de facto 'local option' approach. So while I support the removal of the DRP as ineffective or widely ignored and the word, 'God', on similar grounds,...as long as the de facto local option approach continues, I'm OK with that too. In effect, both ways amount to the same thing. The fundamentalists and absolutists will not turn back the clock on this because the numbers are declining and BSA needs to be as inclusive as possible. And, given that the fundamentalists and absolutists are here still, in spite of the widely-practiced local option approach, they are not likely to leave because of it. They just flame off once in a while. And that's kind of interesting to watch too. Edited part: typos, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gonzo1, I've been following this and I will take a crack at your question.....but it'll have to wait until after I cause some anxiety in some students. "And there shall be weepage, and gnashing of teeth." Later...

John-in-KC, I think I didn't actually have a question anywhere in that but thanks for the reply. I understood what you meant by 'unit' BTW. Your inclination to leave these matters to the families is just fine with me and a good way to be inclusive. Prospective (and current) families in BSA might view the policy with confusion, however. I wish they could view it as being more inclusive.

John-in-KC, I want to go back to something you wrote: "Much of Christendom distills its beliefs from the whole of the Bible to the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's/Nicene Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. Even there, some protestant units substitute NT scripture verses for the creeds." While I can't disagree with what you wrote, I add that the various flavors of Christendom pick and choose which parts of the above best reflect their preconceived notions or interpretations. Such differences have, in fact, led to the fractionation into more and more flavors (whatever). Logically, if the sources you listed formed a tight, coherent, and clearly written document, there would be less disagreement among those who call themselves Christians - they don't. But also logically, since the disagreements exist (as with Sunni and Shiite Moslems and various flavors of other religions) the lack of any absolute becomes obvious. ALL of them can't be absolutely correct. Only ONE of them can. And there is no way to sort this out since belief is based solely on faith and not on objective evidence that can be tested. If I were to be very charitable to the people who make BSA policy, I would say that they recognize this and therefore have great difficulty in composing a tight, clear, coherent policy that is non-sectarian and as inclusive as possible. If your argument is that the ability to have faith in something is of value in and of itself, I am sympathetic to that notion. It is, after all, part of 'trustworthy'. However, I would not restrict this quality to faith in the supernatural and especially not to a particular supernatural belief. There are plenty of other things in which to have faith. Trevorum, Aquila calva is doing a good job...be nice to him. Removing the 'God' thing would work nicely, I think. After all, if God is all that is claimed, God should be big enough to be able to handle a change like that. On the other hand if God can't let it go by, then God is exhibiting some rather dark and human qualities that make it, well, less than god-like...and more like an imaginary or illusory invention or something...that reflects more of the qualities of the inventor(s) than something that is really there. As Ronald Reagan would say, "...there you go again, Packsaddle.":)

SSScout, I suspect that if BSA recognized the Buddhist award prior to the rule change, they were probably 'grandfathered' in along with the probably-less-than-25 Zoroastrian units. Sadly, just when I'm getting in the mood to try to give the top of the organization another chance in my mind, the ring of truth to Merlyn's rendition of all this just puts a cloud over it all again. Calico, not to make you feel nervous, but I agree with you. "...and although Linda Wortheimer rolls her eyes when I say it, this is NPR."

Ed, My answer to the first question is, 'Yes'. Do you really equate BSA with Jesus? Just curious.

Kudu, Outstanding! That's sure one of my favorites of all time. It was precisely the passage I thought of as a child when my old Presbyterian church dug its heels in on the issue of racial integration and I've used it more recently to shame a CO into greater support of the unit they charter. It was met, BTW, with stunned silence...and a little more support, at least for the time being. H'mmm maybe there IS something to this 'hell' thing.

In the fabric of LongHaul's life (kind of like the cobwebs of my mind) I think a couple of threads got mixed up.

Iiiimmmm baaaackk! From the dentist, that is. Gonzo1 might appreciate this but I actually fell asleep in the chair. Laughing stock of the whole office, I'm afraid. I just hope the students don't find out..oh hell, I'll probably tell them myself. Oops, did I let one slip? Sorry. You guys lay off Gonzo1! He's being nice and just wants to know the answers like the rest of us. And (the part I like best) he is susceptible to reason. Merlyn, that last thing was really interesting. I will check out the other thread. Trevorum, I would point out that in one sense, at least, LDS most certainly IS a pyramid scheme - based on the fact that they are trying to 'save' everyone else by proxy, even dead relatives going back as far as their geneology work can take them, possibly to Adam (I wonder if they know about mitochondrial DNA). It might not make much money but that looks like a pyramid to me. Weird too! But otherwise I agree with your comparison. H'mmm maybe my Church of Moral Thermodynamics has a chance after all..and a hidden chance to make a LOT of money..uuuuhhh, I've got work to do. How do you think I'll be as the leader of a new cult?

I have had similar thoughts for a long time. When I go to the waterfront at summer camp and view the boys and staff, for some reason my mind drifts to 'Moby Dick'. I wonder why? Anyway, I think the days of token units and segregation are over in BSA, at least I hope so. So what is left is for the program to reflect the make-up of the community. And this doesn't necessarily reflect the %composition as much as it does the dominance of some socio-economic cultures over others. I'm willing to admit that scouting is preferred by members of certain socio-economic 'cultures' more than others. I can't explain why but in spite of our very strong efforts to increase diversity (and we do have fairly good diversity in this unit), the diversity we have mostly reflects a diversity of families - all of whom share very similar lifestyles and interests for their children. Not necessarily along racial or ethnic lines. Perhaps the concept of 'diversity' is in some need of revision.

Gonzo1, When I compare the paragraphs you brought to us to the letter detailing BSA's acceptance of 'rock worship', I wonder first if their 'list' actually has rock worship on it someplace. But probably not. The juxtaposition of statements like these is why so many of us wallow in confusion as to what BSA really thinks...they don't speak clearly, or with one voice it seems. It is as if they don't really WANT to address the questions - or else don't have answers for them. Either way, the waffliness of their morass of conflicting statements is a perfect way to invite 'local option' as a de facto policy. Which is, evidently, the current reality. Now, time to get back to the 'ballet'.

Gwd, there have been several very nice scholarly explanations for the common set of values or moral codes that we seem to share, regardless of religious belief (killing for no reason, for example, is almost universally considered wrong). Ultimately they attribute this convergence to some aspect of human nature and religion is merely erected to account for it (sorry, this really didn't do justice to their arguments, I admit). I actually disagree. Human nature only needs one characteristic to achieve all those things and it is one of the points of the Scout Law - Thrifty. To answer their arguments I have created a religion with one member (me), "The First Church of Moral Thermodynamics". Don't try to google it, you won't find it out there unless someone plagiarized my idea. Nearly all of the moral code on which most of us agree can be derived simply by applying a single assumption to thermodynamic laws. That single assumption is: that greater efficiency has greater value than lesser efficiency. It is this innate sense that every single one of us uses to make purchase decisions, decisions of where to cross the street, and whether or not to admit to having spilled a cup of coffee...and, of course, the really important decisions as well. That's probably enough for now. I've shared this in the past but it might have been before your time in these threads. LongHaul, I have to go back to one fine point regarding life, death, the meaning of everything, and spawning...and remind you that having recognized that death, like taxes, is inevitable, spawning as much as possible just makes good sense. Moral thermodynamic sense, that is.

Amen to that smackdown part! Heck, I can't resist...I have to remind everyone that what used to be called "Championship Wrestling" is what I now call "Redneck Ballet". I recently did this again...switch the channel to wrestling and turn the sound down all the way. Now put on some ballet music on the stereo. Tchaikovsky's 'Swan Lake' or 'Sleeping Beauty' work really well. For some reason, what you're watching makes more sense that way and the music is just great!

Unless the vast unknown emptiness IS that god for some person - and unless BSA is ready to make a very specific definition of what BSA means by "God", the judgment should be left to the individual holding the belief. BSA's desire not to provide such specificity is obvious.

Heh, heh, I sometimes amuse myself - imagining Ayn Rand's childhood in a Presbyterian environment. I think many of my elementary school teachers were followers of hers. I'm OK with your second suggestion. In fact, that is effectively what is happening anyway now.

I'll take a crack at the question, assuming I understand it correctly. How would an atheist be able to meet the 'duty to God' part of the oath? The problem is contained in the determination of who judges the oath as having been met. If we are left to make this as a personal judgment that is one thing. But if each of us is to be judged by someone else that is quite another, and I think this is the distinction that has driven so much discussion in these threads. If someone is to receive external judgement, who is it that is qualified to cast those stones? But if the judgement is strictly personal that is easy. Think of it in terms of math. If the duty is the denominator and the personal belief system is the numerator, then some of us who are deeply religious will have a large fraction to contend with in meeting the oath. It will be a personal expectation that we each attach to our own life. For those of us who are 'so-so' religious, the fraction is not as large and we would be able to judge ourselves as having met the oath with less religious involvement in our lives. An atheist would have a numerator of zero. The atheist would have no personal duty to any god. And therefore, regardless of what the denominator says, the quotient would always be zero. He would have to do nothing to meet his personal duty and the oath because he has no personal duty to any god. The only way a problem occurs is IF the person with a large fraction attempts to cast those stones and become the external judge. As long as matters of faith remain deeply personal and not subject to BSA 'thought police', this should not be the problem it has been over recent years. BSA doesn't really have to do anything to avoid the problem. What they have to do is NOT to stick their noses into personal belief systems. That takes no effort whatsoever.