Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Bobanon]

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.

[evmori]

FB,

The Constitution doesn't say a thing about the separation of church & state. It does have language about the freedom of religion, though. A public school chartering a BSA unit no more violates any Amendment than say the word "pooper" on a street corner does.

 

ohadam,

Yeah the DRP does state what the BSA feels makes the "best kind" of citizen. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative. Either lie & sign your leader application or find an organization that fits you better.

 

Saint Cad,

 

I'll answer your 1st question by asking you one. How do homosexuals represent family values?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Lisabob]

Ed, the establishment clause in the first amendment is nearly universally understood to be the place where the Constitution does, indeed, say something about separation of church and state. Specifically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

 

In historical context, this was a direct refutation of the British experience with an official "state" religion.

 

I have never heard of any, even rather fringe, religious groups in the US who have made a serious argument to the contrary. Now, there are all kinds of arguments as to what exactly constitutes an establishment of religion. But nobody seriously claims that the Const. is silent on this issue.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ed,

The original Constitution without the Bill of rights, without the First Amendment, and without the Supreme Court rulings for the Separation of Church and State would make your statement correct. In 2006, your statement is questionable but then you may have other information.

FB

[evmori]

A public school chartering a BSA unit is not establishing a religion or making a law establishing a religion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[ohadam]

The leader application said I have to agree? Uh oh.

[ohadam]

"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 . . . . The [bSA'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 the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership. [] . . . . The applicant must . . . subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise and the Scout Law."

 

Hmm. I'll have to consider whether subscribing to the Declaration of Religious Principle means I have to agree that "no member can grow into the best citizen without recognizing an obligation to God", or whether I can get away with acknowledging that BSA believes it and promising to "give definite attention to religious life."

 

If I decide it requires me to agree, then you're right, Ed, I'll have to give up my leadership position, because I don't agree and I won't lie.

[Lisabob]

Ed writes: "A public school chartering a BSA unit is not establishing a religion or making a law establishing a religion. "

 

And this is where we could get into a discussion about what, exactly, constitutes an "establishment of religion." I'll be the first to agree, interpretation is key. But this is quite different from your previous assertion that "The Constitution doesn't say a thing about the separation of church & state.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not even going to try to get into the interpretation discussion - once again, there's no point. People will interpret the establishment clause in ways that fit with their own preferences and beliefs, but it really doesn't matter since (as far as I can tell) nobody on this board has a seat on the US Supreme Court bench.

 

Lisa'bob

[DanKroh]

Ed asks: "How do homosexuals represent family values?"

 

Well, other than being loving, caring people who are deeply involved with their children, trying to raise children who are kind, ethical, and socially well-adjusted by being involved in school, church, sports, etc?

 

Hmm. Sounds like a lot of heterosexual people I know, too.

 

So, Ed, what "family values" are homosexuals incapable of representing that heterosexuals do, other than not being a couple that consists of a man and a woman? Keep in mind that I am a single parent, and I consider my family to represent "family values" even though it does not involved both a man and a woman.

[Bobanon]

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.

[Eagledad]

>>A spiritual guide / religion is not necesarry to the development of a moral code in the least.

[Bobanon]

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.

 

[Eagledad]

>>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.

[Bobanon]

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.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think you are thinking of Karl Marx who regarded religion as the opium of the masses.

 

The complete quote is "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

 

He had a few other ideas about government styles, a few of which have been tried(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)