All I want is an explanation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

On a historical note:

 

At the turn of the century, before and after, it was thought by many that a person that did not have a religious affiliation, was not worthy to serve the King or be in public office. The reasoning was that a person that did not believe in God could not be trusted because of a lack or morals. Einstein was turned down for not having a religion (*thus, no morals) by Franz Joseph. He later ascribed to Judaism to obtain a teaching position.

 

BP lived during this time period and most likely believed that religion and morals were connected. So, the Boy Scout program used this principle, it's the same one today.

 

One might accuse Einstein of lacking morals and therefore falsely testifying of his faith. Einstein saw it as an expedient to obtain his goal and believed it had very little to do with morals and he was correct. He was a scientist first and foremost and other issues were considered secondary. Part of his genius was his ability to know what was important. He lead his life that way, which did not always align with what others believed to be right or moral. In the process, he changed the world dramatically.

 

One could also ask if religion should be a requirement for Scouting today. Can a person serve his country without serving his god-God? Can a person that does not ascribe to a god-God have morals? I believe that after two World Wars and several other conflicts, that we can say that both believers and non- believers fought and died for their country, so we can say, yes that it is possible to serve one's country without serving any god whatsoever. We can also say, yes that a person that serves no god can have morals, as with Einstein.

 

Then what is the reason that keeps that kind of person from being in the Boy Scouts?

 

It has to do with the Oath and the Law. To do otherwise, would be to change a fundamental, foundational principle and a tradition. It would take away the core of the program. If you correctly understand tradition, you would move very slowly before you ever liberated anyone from it.

 

But aren't you being divisive? Yes, it could be seen as such but Scouting is much less divisive than any other organization that exists today. There is an open invitation from Scouting that allows most of the world's population and most their enemies to enter into this Brotherhood. That is a large club that covers lots of beliefs.

 

But isn't a little division still wrong? Yes, but fixing the problem could make it worse. How so? I believe it would become a totally different organization because of the things lost. I would humbly request that you consider making your own club before overhauling this one. I don't think you would like the end product, nor would I and millions of others.

 

What about Einstein? I still believe he would have changed the world without lying to get his job. His abilities were known by many and he was well on his way, not to be stopped. When things finally did get bad for him with the Nazis, he left the country that did not want him and went to America. It is the land of the free; freedom of religion or no religion.

 

FB

 

[powdersons]

For those of you who thought I was advocating trying to convert Scouts to "my religion" let me try again. My comments were directed to adults and intended for adults. The point I was trying to make was that I have the constitutional right to speak of god and religion. As I said in my post, say stop and I will stop because I respect your right to have and practice beliefs different from mine. Unfortunately, for many atheists any mention of god or religion is argued to be a violation their right not to believe. It seems they can only exercise their rights if the rest of do things their way and refrain from exercising our rights.

 

I have experience of Muslims at day camp. They stepped aside at their required prayer time and exercised their religion. They did not demand that the non-Muslims stop what they were doing and join them. They did not even ask that we stop the activities so that they did not miss any part of the program. At Camporees the LDS units did not demand that the Camporee end for everyone on Saturday evening because they do not camp on Sundays. I have never had a Jewish or Muslim Scout or Scouter ask that all menus conform to their requirements only that food they can eat be included. If the atheists Scout or Scouter would stand (or even sit) silently and allow the rest of us to practice our religious beliefs their argument to allowed membership would be much stronger. That is how one becomes an atheist Eagle Scout, isn't it?

(This message has been edited by powdersons)

[packsaddle]

eagledad, I may be able to supply an answer to your last question. And it is related, perhaps, to the supposed (by FuzzyBear) moral code employed by Albert Einstein. I can easily derive a moral code based on the laws of thermodynamics and a simple assumption that greater efficiency is 'better' or 'more moral' than lesser efficiency. I could establish this as a 'secular religion' if I thought anyone would adopt it. I would call it the church (religion?) of "Moral Thermodynamics". Merlyn could adopt this and perhaps become a scout leader.

Moreover, most of the derived code would be similar, if not identical, to the elements of the code you claim to be based on belief in God.

Here's the major difference: Persons ascribing to my code would do so out of their own choice, having decided for themselves that this was a good thing to do. Persons rejecting my code, having a preference for the God-based code would choose so because they need to be TOLD what the code is by a 'higher power'.

Either way, the resulting code is substantially the same.

[Fuzzy Bear]

PS,

In the Church of Thermodynamics, the second law would preclude a higher power, therefore leaving Merlyn with only a personal moral code. A personal moral code is to be respected and appreciated but it does not fit the definition that is required to be a member in the BSA.

FB

 

[Trevorum]

The old joke, "A religion is just a cult with more members" has a certain degree of truth to it. While not arguing with Pack, I'd like to point out that creating a religion out of whole cloth is not that simple (the "Bab", Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hubbard being notably successful). Scholars view all religions as being comprised of three essential elements: theology, ritual, and morality.

 

Theology provides answers to the great questions: "Why are we here?", Why is there suffering?", "What happens after we die?". To address these, theology generally invokes a pantheon of supernatural beings, forces or places.

 

Ritual includes stylized behaviors, ceremonies and rules of dress or diet that promote group cohesion and provide a visible bond between the individual and the theology.

 

Morality is a system of behavioral rules that allow people to get along in large groups. All societies contain basic rules such as, "Don't kill people", and "Don't lie or steal". Other rules are culturally specific such as, "Don't acquire more stuff than your neighbor". The origin and enforcement of the rules are often linked explicitly to the theology.

 

Different religions combine these elements in different ways. Some religions emphasize theology more than others, others emphasize ritual or morality. I think Pack's point may have been that morality, while most commonly linked to theology, can exist without it.

[Hunt]

To try to restate a point I tried to make before: EVERY moral code is a personal choice--even a code based in a revealed religion requires you to choose to believe in the truth of the religion.

On the flip side, almost everybody's moral code is composed of elements they have adopted from others--whether it is their religion, social norms, books they've read, or something else, few people construct a moral code from the ground up.

To put it another way, I see no reason to think that another person's moral code is more likely to be correct (ie, adhering to the true religion, ie, my religion) just because it is derived from some other religion.

As I've said before, I think BSA has good reasons for insisting on religious belief of some kind for membership--I just don't think better morality is one of those reasons.

[FatherJim]

After reading through all 10 pages of this very exciting argument, and as past adjunct Professor of Ethics, Univ of MD-European Division, and holding an earned Ph.D. in Religion, I was very proud of the basically well reasoned views and arguments expressed by Scouters in support of BSA's commitment to keeping religion in the program.

Although I my heart goes out to the young man who started this thread, I do believe he somewhat set up a straw man.

When I defended my doctrinal disertation in front of 3 hard old German Lutheran Professors I used much the same tactic, i.e. I reasoned out every conceivable question they could possibly ask and developed a good answer for it. In my heart I wasn't looking for a greater truth but just defending my opinions. The end of the 2 hour grilling came when my advisor's dog grunted and rolled over on its back.

Did I just hear someone grunt?

[Rooster7]

EVERY moral code is a personal choice--even a code based in a revealed religion requires you to choose to believe in the truth of the religion.

 

I think theres a better way of stating the above. Every person freely chooses the basis for his/her own moral code. People of religious faith, or rather people who choose to follow a particular faith conscientiously, are choosing a moral code which is defined outside of themselves. Some people claim to embrace a particular faith, yet deviate from its moral teachings. They have made a conscious decision to modify the moral code of their chosen faith.

 

To put it another way, I see no reason to think that another person's moral code is more likely to be correct (.e., adhering to the true religion, ie, my religion) just because it is derived from some other religion.

 

I disagree. If there is absolute truth, and I am one that subscribes to that opinion, then some of these moral codes are mutually exclusive. That is, not every code can be 100% correct. There cannot be more than one truth. Furthermore, moral codes created by individuals are subject to the failings of that particular individual, some of which, he/she may not even be aware of.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dr. J.,

 

Well reasoned opinions are not all that we have here. It takes little more than a subtle vapor trail of some tale of Absolute Truth to set us upon arguments long ago pondered by those that died defending them in similar circumstance and then left behind for others like us to "reason" out. Like you, we could no more find a greater truth than if it were stapled to our foreheads and looked at by us in the mirror. Unlike your defense, when the dog grunts it is but a battle cry for more of the same.

 

FB

[packsaddle]

Trevorum, Your restatement of my intended point is correct, I do caution you that I have no desire to be comparable to Ron Hubbard so don't expect to discover a cult of Moral Thermodyamicists out there anywhere.

I admit that I inserted that remark about Merlyn to see how someone would respond. But if Merlyn were to view, say, Lord Kelvin as a higher power, I think BSA would have to choke down its objections. Or else essentially disqualify all persons for whom a deity is either a person or some other tangible object.

FuzzyBear, quite right. And this is why I promote an open arena to allow us to assail ideas rather than each other. Let the dog groan all it wants, throw on another log, and keep the ideas flowing. And perhaps some libations as well.

[Hunt]

"If there is absolute truth, and I am one that subscribes to that opinion, then some of these moral codes are mutually exclusive."

 

I agree with that--but I don't think it follows from that proposition that a religious-based moral code is necessarily "better" than a secular moral code--from your point of view(and mine as well) the true test of a moral code is how closely it adheres to absolute truth. And the only way for me to perform that test is to compare a person's moral code to my concept of absolute truth. When I do that, a particular atheist's code may be closer to my views than those of a religious person's.

Now it could be that there is some intrinsic different between moral codes based on belief in a higher power and moral codes based on secular philosophical ideas, but historically the basic ideas (like the Golden Rule, justice, altruism, etc.) have characterized both kinds of codes. (There are counterexamples, of course, like Ayn Rand's philosphy--but they aren't mainstream.) If you really had to pick out a difference, religion-based moral codes are much more likely to include very specific requirements that are very difficult to explain based on a broader principle.

Another possible question would be: is a person with a religious-based moral code less likely to violate his own moral code than a non-believer with a philosophy-based moral code? I'm sorry to say that I haven't really observed this to be true, with the exception of people very strongly devoted to their beliefs.

[Eagledad]

Hi All

 

>>I admit that I inserted that remark about Merlyn to see how someone would respond.>I think Pack's point may have been that morality, while most commonly linked to theology, can exist without it.

[Rooster7]

but I don't think it follows from that proposition that a religious-based moral code is necessarily "better" than a secular moral code--from your point of view (and mine as well) the true test of a moral code is how closely it adheres to absolute truth.

 

As for me, I am convinced that the absolute truth is contained in Jesus Christ and Gods Word. That being the case, in my eyes, any moral code that doesnt conform to Christ and the bible, is substandard.

 

But even if I were not a believer, Id argue that a moral code created by a group (assuming the group is reasonable and kind of heart) has more legitimacy than any code created by an individual, for the reason I stated previously: moral codes created by individuals are subject to the failings of that particular individual, some of which, he/she may not even be aware of. There are no checks and balances when an individual makes decisions without any outside authority. This is why we prefer democracies to dictatorships.

 

But then again, even a moral code created by a group, is subject to the collective failings and weaknesses of that particular group. With no outside force with no overriding and guiding principles or power, conventional moral codes will always be subject to the whims of the current generation and/or the collective conscience of those empowered to create such codes. Some like to view these evolving moral codes, regurgitated and reinvented generation after generation, as the product of a progressive and maturity society (i.e., this isnt your grandmothers moral code). Others see the ever-changing morality resulting from each passing generation as the gradual decline of a society that increasingly no longer fears God. Instead of conforming to God (His ways), we chose to satisfy our own self-interests; we embrace a life of self-indulgence; and we deny absolute truth. Two Churchill quotes, which I offered in another thread, rings so true to me

 

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is."

 

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

 

[Hunt]

To be fair, BSA does choose wording in its statement of religious principle that suggests religious people are better than others: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God..." I think this could easily be replaced by something like "The Boy Scouts of America believes that all persons have an obligation to God..." But even as written, it's a proposition that either you agree with or you don't--if you strongly disagree, you don't join.

[Eagledad]

>>Another possible question would be: is a person with a religious-based moral code less likely to violate his own moral code than a non-believer with a philosophy-based moral code?> To be fair, BSA does choose wording in its statement of religious principle that suggests religious people are better than others: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God...">As I've said before, I think BSA has good reasons for insisting on religious belief of some kind for membership--I just don't think better morality is one of those reasons.