Atheist leader

[Vicki]

calumetz, this is pretty much how a lot of topics/threads in this forum go. Personally, I love the way this happens - it's so much like some actual conversations I've had. Some refer to this forum as the electronic campfire - fairly apt description.

 

You're right, it is pretty straightforward concerning atheists and that was the original discussion point. Unless I've missed an e-mail or two in this thread (possible) I don't think anyone is arguing that point. We've just diverged into the grey area:

[Torveaux]

Slavery as we know it from US History, comes from multiple sources. The Portuguese brought African slavery from Africa to the European world. Native Tribes had slavery as well. The real American contribution was to 'improve' it. The industrialized version practiced in the 1700-1800s was rather unique to the 'New World'. The North American version was considered humane compared to the conditions in South America. Here, family groups were most often kept together and slaves were encouraged to 'breed'. While this is certainly barbaric in our times, the alternative was much worse. South American slave owners simply worked their slaves to death and bought new ones.

 

The fault of the Founders had nothing to do with bringing slavery to the US. In fact, the position was considered quite strongly anti-slavery by those who favored its practice. Had concessions not been made to the large plantation owners and the associated slave trade, the US would never have thrown off British rule, much less formed a nation. Sometimes compromise is necessary to reach a long-term goal, even if it means accepting something less than what you want.

 

(sorry, I'm a Social Studies teacher)

[Trevorum]

Vicki, I agree! In fact, these electronic campfires can be liveier than the real thing. We're all grateful to Terry.

 

I also agree that we seem to concur on the main issue of this thread. However, I am still concerned that none of us falls into the trap of defining "atheist" as anyone who does not believe in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God.

 

[Vicki]

Trevorum wrote >I am still concerned that none of us falls into the trap of defining "atheist" as anyone who does not believe in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. >

 

agreed!

 

Torveaux, as a person with personal reasons to be very familiar with South/Central America and its history, I concur. The legacy of Europe there (Spain) is much different than the legacy here and much darker in many ways. Of course, then there's the more recent legacy of the U.S., but I'll stop here, we've wandered really far afield at this point:

[Downtoearth]

OK, I can't help myself:-)

 

Calumetz,

Amen! Sorry I've allowed myself to be dragged so far afield. I knew the risk when I originally responded to . . .

 

Trevorum,

You must be either an Attorney or a politician:-) No insult intended. It's just that you have a unique way of twisting words and restating them in contexts unintended. Rather than continue to elaborate on each point so that I can be sure you've understood my intent, I'll just suggest that you might not be so "baffled" if you'll go back and read the posts carefully. Most of what you've attributed to me as far as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, terrorists, criminals core values, etc., I haven't said. As far as my "narrow" thinking, I'm not sure that I'm guilty of that here, and there's also a good chance that I'm not the only one guilty of it. Although I have observed many who would characterize people who wouldn't adhere to their way of thinking as "narrow". I try not to make such judgments, particularly based on a few forum posts. So as not to further clutte the post with what are becomming unrelated topics, I suggest private e-mail as a more appropriate discussion forum if you still desire to continue.

Regards,

Dte

[Trevorum]

dte, ouch!

OK, I apologize if I was reading your words wrong. I didn't mean to attribute ideas to you which you do not have. I guess I jumped to erroneous conclusions - having been badgered before in Scouting situations from good people who think their particular brand of faith is the only kind or the best kind.

 

...

 

So, how about them Nationals?

[Downtoearth]

Well, now . . . that's more like it pardner:-) No offense taken, nor was any intended.

 

I'm afraid I can't discuss the Nationals though. Even if I had time to follow them, they're blacking out all the games here in good ol' VA. Maybe we'll hook up somewhere else with a more mundane topic, like what kind of pack to get for my son or something.

[Vicki]

Dte wrote >Maybe we'll hook up somewhere else with a more mundane topic, like what kind of pack to get for my son or something. >

 

Now THERE'S a topic that can bring out the rabid loyalist in a person - Kelty, Lowe Alpine, North Face; internal vs. external frame.

 

I shudder to think:

[anarchist]

Fuzzy....I wasn't off... and Fscouter, I didn't say the indians (my ancesters) gave slavery to anyone...it was part of the human condition since mankind began 'choosing up sides'. To lay institutional slavery on the founding fathers is not just poor history it is wrong and if 'wrong' is not admitted when it is proved wrong..it... is a lie...

 

Repeating falsehoods until you believe them and hope others do to may work in conservative politics but it is still not the truth...

and Vicki, thanks for the middle ground but historically indentured servitude did not actually 'evolve' into slavery it was replaced by slavery because it could not provide enough labor to keep the economics of the plantation system above water...

 

And Historically speaking almost every culture and ethnic group has had a form of slavery at some point in its development...just a fact, Greeks, Romans, American Indians (north and south), Africans, Europeans, the Mid-East, and Asians all have strong relationships to the slavery issues.

When the institution we all recognize as slavery (the forced servitude of Africans) started in the 'new world', there was no America or United States...there were English, Spanish and French settlements (and some Portuguese)or 'colonies'...components of Imperial European Powers...

 

The founding fathers as most Americans call them, played the cards their time and culture dealt them...and to lay the revisionist history of modern cultural victimhood on their shoulders is simply intellectually dishonest...

 

nuff said

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anarchist,

 

Yes, you missed my point totally. I understand the world history of slavery and was not implying that America invented it (absurd). I was referring to Thomas Jefferson's words about "all men being created equal". Look carefully at those words. This was the same person that had his own slaves and kept them after he wrote those words, as well as many others that signed the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. Now, it was at the point of writing those words that something could have been done about slavery in America not the world over. It was later debated in the American Constitutional Congress and before but consensus could not be reached. Now, keeping those words should have been considered intellectual dishonesty but it wasnt and that is the reason that it such a curious statement. I attribute those words as being a reference point to a conflict that continued forward in American history.

 

Thomas Jefferson took those words from John Locke (all men being created equal, which might also be considered intellectual dishonesty). J. Locke was an English liberal philosopher who wrote those words in 1690 (?-Second Treatise of Civil Government). Some of this same thinking came from Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws in 1748. Montesquieu was also an opponent of slavery and his writings were used by James Madison, another lifelong slaveholder and theFather of the (United States) Constitution, wrote, If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself. (The Federalist Papers- American) It was George Mason another Virginia plantation owner who convinced others, including Madison to include the (American) Bill of Rights, 1791, based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. John Jay, a wealthy New Yorker and Alexander Hamilton, a person of self-made worth was against slavery and the principle author of the writing of the Federalist papers. It was not until 1868, after the Civil War that the 14th amendment was added.

 

A. Lincoln, a later American President used these same words,

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. in his address at Gettysburg, 1863. It ends with, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. It was at this awful point in American history that something had been done about slavery (in America).

 

Today (in America), we assure the bombarded and vanquished that we do not intend on enslaving them, taking their natural resources or changing their way of living other than giving them freedom. I find this to be an ideal of worth and one based on the principle that all men are created equal

 

FB

[t487scouter]

Wow, miss a few weeks on this forum and it takes hours of reading to catch up. I may be too late since I have not read a post from EL, are you just reading and not posting or did you give up? My post is in no way meant to slam you or try to make you change your beliefs. Only you know what you should do. I have to agree with others that I do not believe that you joined scouts completely blind. I would assume that you at least opened the scout book and by reading the first few pages it is clear that this organization is based on many religions and God. I would like to add to the other posts though. Our children mimic what we do, I am sure you can attest to that. You may have your mind made up that there is not a God and unbeknownst to you, you are also instilling this fact in your childrens minds. You may not want to explore different religions but why not allow your children to? Encourage them to attend church with a friend or even attend an evening church group. We should not steer our children in a certain direction but let them explore and take their own direction (unless of course danger is involved.) Now, for the flip side. I am assuming that most on here, have, or at one time had, boys that belonged to this organization. I am sure that you believe in BS as much as I do and want to see your boys go as far as they can and learn as much as they can. Answering truthfully, what would you do if your own son confessed to you that he was an atheist? Would you try to talk him back into religion as we are trying to do with EL? If he refused, would you demand he quit?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

t487scouter asks EagerLeader:

You may have your mind made up that there is not a God and unbeknownst to you, you are also instilling this fact in your childrens minds. You may not want to explore different religions but why not allow your children to?

 

Why do you assume EagerLeader does not allow this?

 

Encourage them to attend church with a friend or even attend an evening church group.

 

Assuming you have children, have you encouraged them to attend a meeting of a group of atheists like your state's branch of American Atheists?

 

[t487scouter]

Actually for the 1st question, I believe that EL stated that her children did not believe in God. She stated that she has no desire to attend a church so it was an assumption on my part that she has not let her son try either.

 

As for the second question, a great question I might add, I truly do not have an answer. Actually I have never heard of this organization. Had I known about it, I can answer truthfully that I would not have. After giving it more thought, would I be wrong to let them? I would not let them do this without first checking it out to make sure it was child friendly but that is a great question. What is right, what is wrong? I feel they should be able to pick a religion or none at all as well as vote democrat even if I may be republican. Ahhhhh yes, the two topics that will create more controversy than any

[CubsRgr8]

Merlyn! What's your advice to EL? Quit or stay?

[scoutingagain]

As others have said..Wow.

 

I really have nothing to add that hasn't been said.

 

I just wanted to thank all that posted to this thought provoking thread, however it meandered, and to compliment all on their decorum in discussing a sensitive topic.

 

 

 

SA