Bobanon

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.

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.

I like the Scout Oath and Law and try to live my life by them. They are both good guides to life. The 10 Commandments are good rules and guides for life. And I certainly have no problem repeating the Scout Oath and Law at every Scout meeting. Matter of fact its a great idea. I do not believe your biggest stick theory. Man is capable of building a soceity without religious influence. I think that mankind naturally knows right from wrong. If not why are human laws the way they are in the non Abrahamic world. Especially in Asia where Buddhism is more of a philosohy than religion. Our ability to build societies comes naturally without input from religion. Western Civilization is the product of the Abrahamic religions, at least Judism and Christianity and some influence of Islam. Organized religion build around a revealed text is a way to manipulate and enslave the masses. I don't remember who said this, but will post it all the same; "religion was invented to keep the poor from killing the rich." While I don't agree with the statement completely there is some truth to it. Look at the Catholic Chruch's assistance in enslaving the Indians of the Spanish New World. The Church was a willing accomplice in genocide. And the Catholic Church wasn't the only one guilty of that. Look at the genocide carried out against the Indians here in the U.S. There have been more people killed in the name of religion that any other cause. Intolerance of others is one of the main problems of organized religion and dogma. My point is you do not need organized or revealed religion to create a society. Man is not inherently evil, nor will man always choose the low road. Perhaps my favorable opinion of humankind comes from not putting any worth or merit to the claims of various groups to have "the book" given by God Nor do I believe in the idea of original sin, or that an omnipotent God had to sacrifice his son for humankind.

EagleDad you wrote: "moral code will always fluctuate from the guy with the biggest stick. And the little guy will be left out." This happens with religion, and comes about very easily. Have you never heard of the Inquisition? How about the Protestant Inquisition? It wasn't just the Catholic Church that put heretics to death. John Calvin did too. And did you know the last person put to death by the Inquisition was in Mexico City in 1860? 1860! Epicurian poet Lucretius wrote on the issue of how easily religion led to evil in the name of god. Lucretius was branded an enemy of religion by the early Christian church.

ohadam, This is something I have been wrestling with of late myself. I have come to the conclusion that as long as you are not an atheist you can belong. Agnosticism is legit. An agnostic while does not believe there is any way one can have a personal relationship with god, and some believe there is no way to know if god exist or doesn't exist. Have you ever heard of Deism? Deism was the monotheistic religion of the Great Enlightenment and of the American Revolution. Deism was the religion of Ben Franklin, Thomsas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, and John Adams to name just a few. Deist believe in a creator god who stepped back after creation and has had nothing to do with the creation since. Here are some Deist websites: http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm http://moderndeism.com/ http://www.deist.info/ http://www.dynamicdeism.org/ Here is a site dedicated to Christian Deism: http://www.onr.com/user/bejo/ The religious requirements in scouting can be met by the boys parents, or the minister of the boys church. If your chartering organization is a church you will probably find the pastor moret than willing to assist. You don't have to teach an aspect of religion if you choose not to. Matter of fact you can ignore religion for the most part. If one of the other leaders wants to have some sort of religious service let them do it, and same for the boys. Many years ago when I was a boy we never had religious services other than on Scout Sunday we attended our sponsoring chruch as a troop. Even at summer camp there was never any service, or if there was we didn't know about it.

SaintCad you posted; "Can a person truly develop a moral code without a spiritual guide? I don't think so." Does this mean Andy Rooney, Warren Buffet, Lance Armstrong, Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, Richard Leakey, and Ted Williams, to name a few atheist have no moral codes? I work for Mr. Warren Buffet and I can tell you that Mr. Buffet's morals are above reproach. And he expects the same from everyone of his employees. A spiritual guide / religion is not necesarry to the development of a moral code in the least.

EagleDad you make quite a few assumptions and you know what they say about assuming don't you? Just because I don't have a very high opinion of conservative Christians as a whole, doesn't I can't work with them. I do and have for years. And I have many many friends that are Christians. How could you not in the US? I don't really care what people believe or don't believe as long as they don't force it upon me, or others unwarranted. Don't patronize. How old are you? And how long have you been involved in Scouting? Myself, I have been around Scouting for a long time. It seems to me you are the one with the problem with those who have differing ideas. If what I say upsets your world view then don't read my post. Its that simple.

EagleDad I neither agree nor disagree with Wayne Bensen's article. I thought it might give a different persepctive to the discussion. I do know that Mrs. Yates, the lady in Houston convicted of drowning her 5 children was severly mentally ill. How could she not have been. I didn't follow her trial very closely on a day to day basis, however I did follow it close enough to see that her husband, and pastor should both have been implicated for pushing her over the edge. As far as gay parents I know so few as to be able to form a real opinion. But the ones I do know that have children from former marriages seem to be fairing well. And the children don't seem to be any worse for either. I would suppose that the children of gay couples suffer the same stigmatism as interracial children twenty or thirty years ago, (especially in the South). I do not believe that just because a couple is gay that it means they are doing anything deviant, espcically in reguards to their children. I am a Unitarian and the particular church I attend every Sunday has several gay couples. There is nothing outwardly different between them and anyone else. All are very open and friendly. They just have a different sexual orientation. And I for one don't think they're bad, or sub-human in any way. Love cannot fit into a tight construct and it is wrong to try to make it so.

I ran across this on another forum and c&ped it here. Here too is the link: http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/06/double-standard-in-parenting.html Double Standard In Parenting Next time self-righteous religious groups attack gay parents or adoption by same-sex families consider this: ** In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said. ** In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children -- ages 7 years to six months -- to save them from Satan. ** In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God. ** In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God. Obviously, these crazy people do not reflect the vast majority of loving parents of faith. I only point this out to pose two questions: 1) Why are right ring religious fanatics singling out loving same-sex families for scorn and ridicule? 2) Can you imagine the uproar Neo-Puritan groups would have made if a lesbian couple had crushed the skulls of their three children? They would surely have blamed it on their sexual orientation, not the fact the women were insane. There would have been calls to ban same-sex adoption in all 50 states. There is clearly a double standard that has to end. Why must gay people defend their basic fitness for parenting when it is clear that sexual orientation has nothing to do with, say, whether or not a parent throws a child into San Francisco Bay?

Anyone that burns the flag is automatically marginalizes themselves. Whatever complaint or gripe they have is lost and all anyone remembers is the nut burning a flag. While I detest seeing the American flag dishonored in such away I wouldn't want to deny someone the chance to make a supreme jackass of themselves. ohadam you're exactly right about the knee jerk reationary effect of such hot topic issues. Who'd have though the issue of gay marriage would have been one of the key issues of the 04 campaign. Henry Lewis Mencken once wrote, "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed and hence clamoring to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins most of which are imaginary".

Okay, I apologize for the "religious reich". My bad. Hunt I am confused by your: "Merlyn, do you think the Roman Catholic Church denigrates atheists by refusing to allow them to receive Mass?" Why would an atheist be upset for not being allowed to receive Mass? On the issue of belief in God. Perhaps it would be more of a universal and acceptable for those other than Christians for the BSA to "have a belief in Deity" for admittance. I don't think this would be offensive to Christians either. Besides, this is one of the requirement to become a Mason, and it has worked well for them.

EagleScout901 welcome. My post about stoning was meant to be taken as humor. While I am not a Christian I do fully believe that the 10 Commandments are a good set of rules and guides for life. In fact they're somewhat universal, much in the way the so many different cultures have what Western Civilization sees as the Golden Rule. The issue on homosexuality is quite a difficult problem. On one hand its discrimination, yet if gay people are openly allowed a certain signifigant percentage of those supporting Scouting will leave. How much has this already cost the BSA in lawsuits and how much more will have to be spent. Plus I hate the fact that the BSA is becoming more and more criticized for its practices. How in the world can we ever come up with a solution that will be acceptable to all? I have always been under the impression that the BSA policy towards homosexuality was based on a fear of child molestation. Scoutldr is correct in that the organization will evolve over time. I have been in Scouts for nearly as long as Scoutldr and have seen some pretty dramatic changes over the years. I never thought there would be women Scoutmasters of female Vigils. It is my sincerest hope that a solution will arrive that is acceptable to all for as Scoutldr said in his post, "Boys just want to camp, have fun and learn cool stuff." Boys learning while having fun is what is most important. That is my .02 on th subject.

Brent what we have here is an impass. You won't believe the Bush Admin has done anything wrong even if a photo of them holding a smoking gun was produced. No matter what is produced you are part of the Bush rah-rah crowd. Not that it matters what you hold to be true. History eventually will show just how bad the Presidency of George W. Bush has been. And I voted for the guy the first in 2000. I have heard interviews of O'Neill where he said during meetings that Bush, etal were fanatical about implicating Hussein and Iraq. I could produce this if I wanted to go to the trouble. However, you're the one needing the info, you check it out. I would say that you need to do some studying on your own. Whether you believe me or not is of little consequence. If you want to continue on believing the pablum fed by the shrills, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Colter that is your problem and your cross to bear. You need to remember that Trustworthiness is one of the 12 points of the Scout Law and should be a guiding principle for all. Especially a former Eagle Scout like Rumsfeld. Lies are the accomplice of all other crimes.

BrentAllen who said anything about invading Iraq prior to 9-11? O'neill claims that Bush and Co. wanted to implicate Iraq as the force behind 9-11 which is false. Faux News even reported it, and as H.L. Mencken would have put it, "Boobus Americanus" bought off on it hook line and sinker. This is apparently true as indicated by your position on the issue. If there hadn't been such a high cost in lives and money it would be funny. I myself do find the antics of the Bush cheerleading crowd to be something of a very sick joke. The Bush Administration is the most ethically bankrupt administration in U.S. history. The supporters of the Bush Admin are the most unethical and clueless electorate in U.S. history. History will prove me correct in this, misspelled words and all.

SaintCad I enjoyed the sarcasm! Here's some more. (EDITED BY EAMONN -DUE TO A REFERENCE TO KILLING BOY SCOUTS. - Totally unneeded.) What I see as the sad fact of the matter is the literal interpretation of the bible. At best the Christian bible is allegory and in no way should it be taken as literal truth. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I was a little hesitant to continue on since the ire of the Forum Admin has been raised. But what the heck............ BrentAllen I am still waiting for your response to what Paul O'Neill former Sec. of Commerce had to say about the skewing of intelligence to implicate Iraq for 9-11.

Fuzzy Bear thanks for pointing out the obvious and providing sage advice: "Religion belongs in the Churches and the daily life of the individual and should not be watered down or disturbed by school activities. Prayer belongs in the individual's private daily meditations and should not be disturbed by school activities or any other activity." Too many Christians seem to have forgotten Jesus teaching about public prayer. evmori would be well served to go and read Matthew 6:5 for you apparently have not read that one. Fuzzy Bear you also pointed out this: "Scouting is not a religion or a religious organization but its policies about God exclude those who do not accept God." While this is true I have gotten the feeling for years that the acceptance of religious beliefs other than Christianity have been done so as window dressing. There was the recent story of the kid kicked out of Scouts for being a Wiccan. Now, while I see the Wiccan religion as being somewhat siily, it is not my nor anyone elses place to say what people can or cannot believe. I have also heard of a Unitarian Scout being given the boot by his Scoutmaster when the Scoutmaster found out the boys religious affiliation. It is not the place of the BSA to conduct religious indoctrination. That is the sole responsibility of the parents. It is not my place as a leader to proselytize my beliefs with the young men and women in my Crew. Religion belongs is the realm of the family, not Scouting. How many non-theist boys have been denied access over the years to Scouting? While I have issues with the BSA over the gay issue, it is the religious issue that I am mainly concerned with. The rise of the religious right, has seen the rise in the BSA of this religous pandering. Much of the doctrine fo the religious right comes from the 19th century and John Nelson Darby, and is as intellectually bankrupt as it can be. A recent Penn and Teller program claimed the Mormon Church has taken over the leadership of the BSA. I don't know that to be true but it could be very easily. The rise of the religious right, and its affect on Scouting will run it's course eventually. The rise came about from the excesses of the 1960's and the sexual revolution, and in the end the same ending will happen to the current hyper-religiosity. In many ways it may be considered a revitilization movement that is destined to fade away. I love Scouting but would like to see the exclusionary policies ended. Discrimination is bad, and sends the message to our young charges that it is okay to discriminate and hate the "wrong" sort of people. This is the opposite of what we should be teaching. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

OldGreyEagle zey haf vays of makink you talk. Actually the company I work for believes that anyone with internet access is just waiting for the moment they can look at dirty pictures on the net. Forum Monitor......cooling it here Boss. ;o)

acco40 you can think of non religious humanist as agnosticism. It is the same as secular humanism. While not atheistic secular humanist do not believe in a deity who takes an active role in the affairs of humans or the earth. They believe that it is our responsibility to create a better world and that no god or gods will step in to assist in any way. Think of it as a religious philosophy that advocates human values instead of religious values, or rather the values dictated by religous dogma. evmori I find it somewhat humorous that the ACLU is fine and dandy when it comes to the aid of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but other times they are the scum of the earth. I must meet this Merlyn person, he sounds down right intelligent!

BrentAllen, I forgot to mention about Mr. Bush's first Commerce Sec. and the revelations Mr. Paul O'Neill came out with after leaving the cabinet. O'Neill claims that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to implicate Saddam Hussein long before talk of invading Iraq ever came out. He claims that they (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld), were obcessive about it. How ethical is that? Ooops, my mistake, never mind, don't try to answer something you couldn't.

LOLOL sorry about the 00000! I wrote that at work in Word so I wouldn't misspell anything, (didn't want to give the forum spelling monitor ammo), and didn't want the IT Nazis at work getting a wiff of what I was writing. Certain words send up flags for them. And I figured homosexual would be a flag word.

BrentAllen are you the forum spelling monitor? The argument that is the point, not whether or not something was spelled correctly. Complaining about a misspelled word or two is grasping on your part. Yes there was intelligence. Was it skewed to make the need for war more palatable? Yes, and there is no need to bring up every instance, but I will point to Niger and the yellow cake as one. How do you explain the out right lie that was made that Saddam was responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11? That was one REAL big whopper of a lie. I can't wait to hear your explanation! We do know that Saddam did have some WMDs in the form of chemical weapons. How did we know this? We still had the receipts. Funny thing we didnt seem to mind when he was using chemical weapons on the Iranians or his own people. Why there is even that famous picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld all buddy-buddy after making a weapons deal. You can accuse me of being a leftist all day long it affects me not. I find your arguments juvenile at best and laughable for the most part. It must be hard to continually put up the faade of moral indignation when one is so ethically corrupt. Keep it up though I am having a ball. I am sorry to inform you that I am not a fan of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill Clinton or his wife, or any of the other bad jokes of the democratic party. The democratic party is a farce and has been for years. On the subject gays; I am comfortable with my own sexuality, are you? I'm happily married with no hang-ups or weirdness in the closet. Those who decry gays the loudest come across as maybe having something to hide themselves. Personally I don't think much one way or another about gays. What adults do is their business, not mine or really anyone else's. There are many like yourself that seem to dwell on 00000 constantly, which may be an indication of latent homosexuality.

Brent surely you can do better than that. Come on, a mindless personal attack? Show me where I'm wrong. Tell me where the weapons of mass destruction are that lead us into war in Iraq. I'm sure Mr. Bush would pay you a big reward for that information. Remember Rumsfeld said he knew where they were. I shall be sitting on the edge of my seat in anticipation of your answer. On a sericous note Brent a word of advice..... for what it's worth there is other news sources besides Faux News Network and Rush Limbaugh.

Hmmm seems I've hit a nerve. Impeachment may be on the horizon, that is if the House goes back to Democratic control. The Bush administration has regularly disreguarded federal laws. From the outing of Valarie Plame to illegal wiretapping. BrentAllen how can you nont be insensed at the out right spitting on the Constitution of the U.S. by the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld? I am amazed that anyone supports them privately much less in open conversation. I suppose too you like our new CIA director. Harry Truman once said this about Richard Nixon; "You don't put the fox in charge of the hen house". That pretty much sums up what I think of the new director, or should I say Big Brother. Last, Brent you can be as wound up as an eight day clock if you like. Like it or not I will comment on what I see as nonsense thinking.

I stopped saying "one nation under god" years ago. I don't necessarily find it offensive per se. BI quit because I don't believe God chooses sides based upon nationality or national origin, I don't believe God thinks one way or another about us actually. If he did, he would love all equally, and maybe a little more for the poor, suffering and destitute.