Atheist leader

[FScouter]

"but to lay its existence on the men who brought forth this nation is just a bald-face lie..."

 

That's a mighty strong statement. Are you suggesting that the Indians (native Americans) gave us slavery in America? One could call that a "bald-faced lie" too. Who do you think initiated the practice of slavery in Ameria?

[Vicki]

I think what anarchist is saying is that the founding fathers didn't invent slavery, nor did they bring it to these shores. Slavery began as indentured servitude (which England also had), a situation in which one either served one's time or bought oneself out of servitude. From the discovery of the Americas through around the mid-1600's, this was the case. It was also true that only non-Christians were enslaved and could become free by professing Christianity. Gradually laws were passed which made slavery a permanent and inherited state of affairs. In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Economically it was expedient to handle it this way - you didn't have to contend with losing your labor force as they worked their way free.

 

While I don't think I would have said "bald faced lie", it certainly was an inaccurate statement. Slavery has been with us since history began and is still with us, albeit less widespread. In the 1700's it was still considered a fairly natural state of affairs.

 

Vicki

[Downtoearth]

This is my first post on this, or any other, forum. As a former scout, scout parent and assistant scoutmaster, the topic was to compelling not to contribute. Hope it turns out OK. I also hope that in an effort to be succinct, I don't come off as rude.

 

1. While I applaude Eager Leader's efforts at quality leadership, she should under no circumstances remain in her leadership position. As a scout parent, I have every right to expect that the leaders of the organization to which I entrust my sons adhere to its standards. This has no relation to the moral qualifier of good, bad or anything else. It's simply the standard, and toying with semantics like "searching" don't change the intent behind the standard.

 

2. One critical point of contention here that hasn't been explicitly stated is the existence of a set of absolute values, or truth. Those of us who subscribe to the Bible (or another source) as God's absolute authority have a set of core values which are generally clear cut (ie. don't lie). Atheists, or those holding some other beliefs, don't have a common core set of values. They base theirs on a variety of life experiences which differ from person to person. What is right for one might not be right for another. As appearent from this thread, some Bible believers don't necessarily adhere to the set of core beliefs they espouse either, but this doesn't change the fact that the belief system exists. Like the Bible, the language in the scout oath, law and other well documented tenets is very specific about the values upon which the organization is based. The relativism (what's right for me is OK, and what's right for you is OK. It's appropriate for the cubmaster to turn a blind eye., ect.) that I see reflected in many of the posts above seems out of place in an organization with such well documented and clear standards.

 

3. Rising_Scout took some knocks for a post that was, in essence, quite remarkable for a young man his age. His statement "this nation was founded on morals and values drawn directly from the Bible" was quite accuratel. He diid not claim that the nation was founded on the Bible, as one respondent claimed, but on the values drawn from the Bible. While it is well-known that some of the founding fathers were deists and not necessarily Christians. they did almost universally share a core set of beliefs that, by instruction as well as heritage, was drawn from the Holy Bible. This set of values was never seriously in question as part of our national character until the last 40 years or so. As a history teacher from Virginia, I'll resist the temptation to digress further on the post about the founding fathers' quotes except to say that Thomas Paine hardly qualifies as a founding father.

 

4. "men who gave us slavery" The Virginia planters at Jamestown, who drew their authority form the crown, gave us slavery. The problem with relativism came during the Constitutional Convention. What was known to be morally wrong was allowed to continue, and even justified, because it was expedient for forming a viable nation.

 

I know it didn't seem succinct, but I tried. I'll close by saying that each American is entitled to hold and to espouse any belief system they like without being discriminated against. Unlike our public political and social landscape, however, BSA is under no obligation to, not should it, compromise the values upon which it was founded in order to accommodate the views or inclusion of those with different belief systems diverging from those values.

[Trevorum]

Slavery was a common fact of life among many groups of Native Americans across the continent, as reported by eyewitnesses. We assume (but can not demonstrate) that this was also the case long before the Fatal Impact with Europeans.

[Vicki]

downtoearth, while I do have a couple of quibbles with your post (no surprise there:

[Trevorum]

Downtoearth, welcome to the forum!

 

I will quibble with your implication that the only valid moral code is the one that is found in the Bible. You said, "Atheists, or those holding some other beliefs, don't have a common core set of values" (emphasis added). This is incorrect and is theocentrist thinking. All religions have a system of ethical principles. Indeed, this is one of the three defining characteristics of religion (the other two being theology and ritualized behaviors). Even godless Humanists subscribe to the "Golden Rule".

 

For more, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[Downtoearth]

Trevorum,

Thanks for the welcome. It seems to be moving off topic, but I'll respond briefly just to show I'm capable of such:-) "Some other beliefs" referred to agnostics or those who mix and match religions and haven't developed a well codified set of beliefs.

 

As to theocentrist thinking, I'm afraid I'm guilty. The Bible is clear that Jesus is "the" way, truth and light and that believers are to follow him with all their hearts, souls, strength and minds. Although I didn't mean to imply it in my other post, (and start a theological debate) I do believe these tenets and try my best to live them. I certainly don't suggest that anyone else must believe them in order to be affiliated with BSA however; simply that they adhere to BSA standards.

[Trevorum]

Shoot, we always move off topic here ...

 

I'll again quibble and disagree with your claim that "agnostics or those who mix and match religions and haven't developed a well codified set of beliefs" do not have a "core set of values". As I said, even atheists abide by the Golden Rule. That's as core as it gets. Insisting that people who do not believe in your god are ethically inferior is insulting. They may not share ALL of values, but that doesn't mean they have completely different values, or no values, or even that any of their values are necessarily wrong.

 

Remember Venn diagrams? Ethical systems, whether religious, cultural, or legal are a lot like that. Most of the important values are shared (Don't kill other people; don't take their stuff without permission; be kind to children and elders; etc.). A very few of the values are unusual or unique to one religion or culture (don't acquire more stuff than your neighbors; don't eat before your children; don't touch a man if you're menstruating). These last are strange to us but they aren't wrong.

[Kahuna]

Aloha,

 

I've come rather late to this discussion, but found it fascinating. The input from Rising Scout is rather remarkable. Based on fifty plus years of Scouting, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

 

I am a Buddhist. Before that, I was a Unitarian Universalist. Before that, I didn't know whether I believed in God or not. I have come to see that there is an intelligent, creating force present in the universe and that I can be a part of and communicate with that force. Whether you call it God or not isn't important to me, but it certainly fits the definition of the BSA's Declaration. Long ago, I was in charge of a District Eagle Board of Review on an occasion when a young man appeared before us who admitted that he didn't believe in God. After some discussion, we adjourned the board briefly. I sat down with the young man privately (this was in the days when it was still okay to do that) and we talked for a half hour about how he saw the universe. He agreed that he believed that there was some intelligence at work, but that he didn't feel it had any direct impact on him. He did agree that it was possible he could be affected by it in ways that he wasn't aware of. I told him that, although I wasn't a minister, I felt that his beliefs would meet the Unitarian Universalist definition of God and asked if he would feel comfortable with that. He said that he did and the board proceeded to confirm him as an Eagle Scout. I would do the same today.

 

I would recommend to Eager Leader that they visit a clergy person from the UU (the UU has given up on the Boy Scouts, but the BSA hasn't given up on them) and/or a Buddhist religous leader (they may or may not consider themselves ministers). It may be that EL and son will find they are not far removed from a religious community that makes them comfortable with the Declaration.

 

Just a thought. I would disagree with Rising Scout that all the founders of Scouting believed in a controlling, judging deity. I do think they felt, along with B-P, that a religious foundation of some kind was essential in the development of youth.

 

This is a pretty long post, but I also would like to defend the BSA against charges of intolerance. It seems to me the organization has gone about as far as one could in defining religion and in setting the policy with regard to sexual orientation of leaders and still have any rules at all. Homosexuals can be leaders, they just can't be leading an overt lifestyle. Think about what would happen to the BSA if they dropped both requirements. Many parents would be very reluctant to put their children into a unit with openly gay leaders. Many churches would not sponsor such units (the LDS church certainly wouldn't), nor would some want avowed atheists running their units.

 

Kahuna

[packsaddle]

Kahuna and Downtoearth, welcome to the forums. Kahuna, that was quite a trip you took through faith. I wish you well.

Regarding slavery, I'm thinking maybe Moses...

 

As for the contention that ending the exclusions would have this or that effect, I heard many of the same...exactly the same...arguments during the time when (horrors!) black people were going to be allowed to drink out of OUR water fountains. Lets see, 50 years ago, society was going to h... in a handbasket (under Eisenhower), there was going to be all manner of conflict, possibly a race war - because black people were going to be allowed to: vote, sit with white people, go to school with white people, live with white people, etc.

Waiting (foot tapping sounds). Still waiting, nothing happening....

[Downtoearth]

Trevorum,

First let me say that I completely respect your right to disagree with me, but to be insulted by my beliefs is entirely your choice and certainly not my intent. As with many religions, Bible belieing Christians believe they have the truth. I've become convinced as an adult that the Bible is God's revealed truth. If I can't hold to this belief without being offensive to you, I himbly aplogize, but it doesn't change my belief. I would only hope that you are equally insulted by Jews, Muslims and others who hold that they know the truth, and not confine your reation just to Christians.

 

AS for "core beliefs", I mean beliefs held in common, and I beg to differ that atheists and many others have a common set of beliefs, not the ones with which I've been acquainted at any rate. Usually they tend to select the ones that best suit their lifestyle. If it were otherwise, our jails wouldn't be so crowded and terrorism wouldn't be the predominant world problem that it's become.

 

Having spoken my mind, and not wanting to further fan the flames of contention, I think I'll take the lead from EagerLeader and withdrae from actively partaking in this discussion. (Unless I just can't help myself:-)

[Fuzzy Bear]

anarchist,

 

Your "Bald Faced lie" arrow fell far short of the apple. Since what I said was "accurate" (thanks Vicki:), then try reading a history text. It might give you enough information to rethink your statements. It is good for the soul and will increase your belief that God stands heads and shoulders above all men.

 

FB

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

Downtoearth,

 

Please don't misunderstand - you certainly didn't insult me; my cyber-skin is too thick for that However, my point was that your narrow view of "core values" excludes millions of fine people who do not share your religion. I'll stop quibbling now (although your belief that terrorists and felons are non-religious is baffling). As you have said, you know the truth, so I won't try to disagree with you. However, I do look forward to more of your thoughts.

 

 

[calumetz]

Is this how all posts on this forum go? What a change in topics. I believe the question was whether she should resign. The answer of course is yes. You can talk of any number of topics related or unrelated but the answer still is she should resign. If the official policy of the organization is no atheist's and she is an atheist, there seems to be little question. You all seem to be arguing whether the policy is just and whether it should be changed. Well, if it's ever changed, she can come back. Until then, goodbye. Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.

[Vicki]

Fuzzy, I was actually taking a middle ground between you and anarchist. The founding fathers didn't introduce slavery to our continent but I don't think their predecessors got it from the native americans who were here either. The point of my e-mail was that the institution of slavery in the U.S. evolved from the English system of indentured servitude from very close to the time of the "discovery" of the northeast on and that by the Revolution/time of our founding fathers it was well entrenched.

 

Vicki