Looks like it's a done deal

[acco40]

Weekender,

 

Your comment, "If there is no God my actions don't matter." is what bothers many individuals, including me.

 

Only a child, and a young one at that, patterns his/her behavior because of a perceived threat or reward (spanking, time-out, hell, heaven, candy, etc.). Are you lumping people with faith into that category? I do not. I will admit, like many free thinking adults, I have questioned the existance of God in my life. Did that change my behavior toward my fellow man? No, not at all. My actions matter a great deal, regardless of an existance of God or not. To say otherwise is insulting.

[littlebillie]

"If there is no God my actions don't matter" is NOT a very well thought out concept.

 

If there is no God, then we ARE animals, and if we are animals, we are cetainly social animals. among social animals certain behaviors promote survival of the species, and certain behaviors do not. As we are intelligent animals, we have codifed (well, overcodified, actually, but that's a different topic :-) our behaviors, and it DOES matter.

 

Having no God is no license to run amuck. Indeed, a case can certainly be made that having no God means we all better make double sure that all offenders get punished and kicked out of the gene pool.... well, ok, that last goes a bit far, but the human community has too long suffered because individual rights are frequently placed above the rights of society.

 

just a perspective...

[CubsRgr8]

I suggest that the defenders of Mr. Lambert as missing the point. When Mr. Lambert turned 18, he chose to volunteer as an adult leader in a BSA troop. He completed and signed a BSA adult leader application. The application contains the Declaration of Religious Principle, which says:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."

 

The adult application goes on to state:

 

"The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be of the correct age, and subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law."

 

An atheist cannot, by definition, subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle,nor the concepts articulated in the Scout Oath (Duty To God) and Scout Law (Reverent), without lying to either himself or BSA. Mr. Lambert chose to lie to BSA. Anyone who is willing to lie their way into a youth leadership position is NOT a role model for those youth and should be removed. Good riddance!

[firstpusk]

Weekender,

 

The point is simple and straightforward. Intelligent Design is religion. There is no scientific theory basis for intelligent design. Your personal religious beliefs are what cause both you and Colson to embrace this theory. There is no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design. A lot of folks may claim that, but it simply is not true. If you believe in it, that is fine with me. If you want to teach your children that, do it at home or in church. But dont teach my children your religion in their science class.

 

You read far too much into the theory of evolution. It is not man's way of justifying his own irresponsible behavior. It is only the scientific explanation for the development of diversity of life on earth. It makes no statements about God or morality. Some use it to justify stupid and cruel behavior, just as religion has been used. The stupid and cruel behavior of humans refutes neither religion nor evolution.

 

Aside to littlebillie, there is a God and we are animals. I did like your summation besides the aside ;^)

 

[dan]

Here is a blurb from the Napa news, it is in the headlines section here.

 

His mother told CNN that no one in their family attends church, and that her husband is also an atheist.

 

 

[acco40]

CubsRgr8,

 

You are correct, Mr. Lambert did not follow the Religious Principle stated on the BSA application and therefore membership should be denied according to the "rules."

 

However, just because someone doesn't like that rule does not make one a defender of Mr. Lambert.

 

Look at part of the Scout Oath "Obedient"; look at how the BSA defines that. In a nutshell, follow the rules but if you do not like the rule, work within the system to get it changed. THAT IS SCOUT LIKE!!!

 

Again, I'll repeat an earlier post:

 

 

To keep myself physically strong ...

 

How many Scouts and Scouters have been booted out of BSA because they did not "eat nutritious foods, get enough sleep, exercise regularly, avoid harmful drugs (including alcohol & tobacco) and anything else that can harm your health."

 

If the BSA revoked the membership of every over weight SM, every smoker, etc. membership would decrease tremendously. Am I not trustworthy because I say the Scout Oath and am guilty of not getting enough sleep on camping trips?

 

Who determines what part of the Scout Oath the BSA wants to enforce and what parts they do not?

 

If you want to breed disrespect for the law, use selected enforcement or make bad laws.

[littlebillie]

just where in the Declaration of Religous Principles does it say YOU, in signing this instrument, thereby profess a belief in God.

 

Haven't we all known atheists that say, you know, it's really better for most folks to believe in God? I can see someone signing this in all good intent and sincerity who is an atheist. and as long as they don't go and "avow" that they're atheists, and don't proselytize - as it were - haven't they met the requirement as stated above? again, I'm not real clear what part flat-out says "I confirm hereby that I personally believe in God"? In fact, the verbiage seems designed to make certain tweak room...? anyone else?

 

I alo know Scouters who believe that flag burning in the right circumstances is truly freedom of speech, but that doesn't keep them from saying the pledge - and they NEVER mention flag burning to the kids (which is the right and proper thing to do) - and they perform Flag Placements with full respect and even awe.

[firstpusk]

Weekender,

 

One more thing on Intelligent Design. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science passed a resolution on Oct. 18 that opposed it being taught as science. The resolution can be found at this link,

 

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

 

It is quite clear that they hold the "theory" in complete disdain. I also think they are a bit more qualified than Colson to speak to the question.

[OldGreyEagle]

For those of us who are either Academically or Theologically challenged, what is Scientific Design?

[littlebillie]

firstpusk, thanks - and now another aside!

 

anyone ever consider that when a fundamentalist speaks of animals, and a scientist speaks of animals, these are in fact apples and oranges? but since everyone's calling them grapes, the true source of all resultant and heated confusion is never addressed?

 

Biblically, let's say that animals were indeed put here for Man. Scientifically, there's no evidence either way as to the "why" of an animal's higher purpose - science looks at the DNA and the body and - well, just looks at the standalone critter - and sees similarities and commonalities among the differences for all life, which (to me) should be a wonderful thing.

 

Regardless that, however, "animal" when used to mean "something put here with the purpose of serving or feeding or amusing Man, regardless of physiology or genetics" is certainly different from animal meaning "another organism that occupies this planet and may or may not share one or many features with us, but which we make no claims about purpose." And of course, that's not even bringing in certain Eastern views that hold that all life is one and intertwined with all the rest of Creation.

 

Anyway - since we never got our terms straight in the first place, how can we clearly discuss the matter?

 

When you define a thing one way by a putative purpose, and another way by features etc, why - you're thru 2 very VERY different windows.

 

and ya gotta wonder if the glass is skewing your vision...

 

 

[evmori]

How can one subscibe to the Scout Oath & law while being an atheist? How can one do their duty to God if they believe there is no God?

 

I'm sure we have all not lived up to one or more of the Scout laws at some point. The thing here is Mr. Lambert being an atheist can't possible live according to the Oath & Law. He admitted he mouthed the "duty to God" part of the Oath & is certainly not being Reverent. Trustworthy is also in question. It's a combination of these that make his expulsion manditory. I also question if his Scouting requirements were handles in a trustworthy manner considering his behavior was condoned by his Troop.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

OGE,

 

They call it intelligent design. It came about a few years after the last time creationism lost at the supreme court. The idea seems to be to deny that evolution works but don't be specific about how anything happened. Simply say that an intelligence had to design life the way it is.

 

Questions like the age of the earth are not addressed because it would start fights between the various kinds of creationists. The question of who the designer is can not be answered because to say it is God would mean that it is religion. Also, they learned after the embarrassment in the trial in Little Rock that stating specifics opened up their pronouncements to probing by scientists.

 

The leaders of the movement tend to be people with some academic credentials but generally they are not working scientists. Micheal Behe is one who is actually a published professor of biochemisty. He has published a popular book and some articles on intelligent design, but no scientific work.

 

The movement seems to be a response to the defeats of the past. Kind of a stealth creationism. They know if they state what they actually believe in, they loose the argument. So they try to deny evolution but there is no beef in the bun.

[NJCubScouter]

Firstpusk, thank you for the explanation of "intelligent design." I have followed the political/legal adventures of the creationists only casually, and did not know a lot of those details.

 

And for everybody else, let's keep in mind what this issue is about. It's not really about what we as adults believe, because we are fully capable of studying and examining different ideas and then accepting or rejecting them based on our own knowledge, experience and reasoning skills, and/or our faith (if any.) As intense as the debate may get between believers in evolution (i.e. science) and creationism in this forum, this is not the real battleground. The real battleground is the schools. The issue is that some people want to use public funds and public facilities to teach their religious beliefs regarding the origin of the world and mankind to a captive audience of public school children. They know they can't do it if they call it religion, because (whether some in this forum like it or not) the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to prohibit the teaching of religious beliefs in public schools, unless it is genuinely a "comparative religion"-type class that presents the facts neutrally rather than promoting any one religion or belief. So they look for scientific names for it. Ten or 15 years ago it was "creation science," which as firstpusk suggests, did not work. Now it is "intelligent design." It is all just a ploy to use my tax money to indoctrinate my children in someone else's religious beliefs.

[firstpusk]

By George, I think he's got it!

[ScoutParent]

NJCubscouter writes:

"The issue is that some people want to use public funds and public facilities to teach their religious beliefs regarding the origin of the world and mankind to a captive audience of public school children."

 

I know and I find it ridiculous that you, firstpusk and others continue to try to do that! Please quit using tax money to spread your Godless psuedoscience!