Under One God...but who's God?

[adc294]

When we were in Southwest Florida, there was a school there that was devoted to severely handicapped kids. The staff created a scout troop for those boys and put on a "Disability Awareness" Camporee each year.

 

I suggested this camporee to the boys in my troop and it scared the daylights out of them. After a little coaxing, they decided to attend. I have to tell you, I was even a little anxious about the weekend.

 

The camporee attached one handicapped boy to each patrol in attendance (or troop if appropriate), and that boy participated in all the other activities for the day...with one catch, each "normal" boy had to assume a handicap of their own (drawn from a hat).

 

Of all the things I have done in Scouting, that was the most eye opening of all. After "passing the knot", we all agreed that we never knew what it would be like to be handicapped, and noone regretted having attended. The boys who didn't attend regretted it though because all the other boys told them what they had missed.

 

I am all for a "Religious Diversity" Merit Badge, and even a camporee.

 

I am a lifelong Roman Catholic, born in the North and raised in the deep South. I attended a Methodist College. I personally do not fear diversity because I know who I am, and respect your stance in life (however wrong you are)

 

 

[Hunt]

"Hunt, the BSA's 'god' requirement is theologically meaningless. You can believe in multiple gods, gods that ignore the entire human race, and any two scouters can have gods that subscribe diametrically opposite behavior. There's absolutely no commonality. It's like defending a whites-only organization because the members really want to be with other whites. I'll still criticize them."

 

So, Merlyn, how specific would our religious requirement have to be before it would be OK with you? I get your point about an all-white organization, but would you criticize the Sons of Italy if they don't allow non-Italians to join? So do we have to become explicitly Christian to pass your test, or can we keep Jews and Muslims as well? How common must be beliefs be in order to qualify as "theologically meaningful?" I'm intrigued by the notion that BSA could become less unfairly discriminatory by kicking people out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, the BSA's requirements as of now are theologically meaningless - can you state any theological statement that all scouts agree on (even ignoring any atheist scouts that might be in the closet)? Buddhists can not have any god beliefs, scouts can be polytheists and believe in multiple gods, and scouts can be deists whose god(s) impose no duties upon them. So what's the basis of allowing these yet excluding atheists if there's nothing uniting the ones who CAN be members?

 

And if you don't understand how a narrower exclusion can be 'better' discrimination, just compare a group that only allows Catholics vs. a group that allows absolutely everyone, except Catholics. I realize you're just playing stupid, but the BSA's religious requirements have never been coherent.

[evmori]

So what's the basis of allowing these yet excluding atheists if there's nothing uniting the ones who CAN be members?

 

They believe in a god and atheists don't. Membership requirement. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if you didn't go to Harvard or Yale you can't be a member of the Harvard-Yale Club! Membership requirement. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Merlyn, you seem to think that there is no "theological" significance to having religious beliefs vs. having no religious beliefs. I suppose it is difficult for an atheist to understand what a Buddhist and a Baptist have in common, but there is a shared outlook and sense of what is important. Rather than "playing dumb," I am pointing out the absurdity of your attempt to make BSA's virtue--its nonsectarian position--into a vice. I suppose it is the case that the highly inclusive nature of BSA's religion requirement makes it that much tougher for the small minority of people who don't qualify. An atheist in America is sort of like the kid who was the only Jew in my high school class. She couldn't join the churches that any of the other kids in the class belonged to (at least, not without giving up her religion). I'm sure that was tough for her, but it wasn't unfair.

[packsaddle]

This stuff is interesting. Perhaps a rewrite is in order?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185708

The bones of Jesus and his family found in an ossuary? Fascinating.

[GernBlansten]

Curious Hunt, what's the difference between a Buddhist and an athiest? Not all athiests are buddhists, but all buddhists are athiests, correct?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gern, not all Buddhists are atheists (since atheism isn't a tenet), but many are.

 

A more interesting question is whether atheists who are members of Michael Newdow's FACTS religion are acceptable, as that is an explicitly atheistic religion:

http://www.restorethepledge.com/FACTS/

 

Hunt, would you exclude Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow for being an atheist, even though he's founded a religion? Would you exclude an atheist Buddhist?

[evmori]

A more interesting question is whether atheists who are members of Michael Newdow's FACTS religion are acceptable, as that is an explicitly atheistic religion

 

Cult! And is an atheistic religion even possible?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Careful Ed, one man's cult is another man's deeply held religious beliefs.

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion. Although not technically atheistic (there is no God), it is non-theistic meaning God is not worshiped as part of the religion. In that light, I can see how one Buddhist could be an atheist, while another be an agnostic, deist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or Wiccan.

Does BSA discriminate between theistic Buddhists and atheistic Buddhists?

[Lisabob]

"Does BSA discriminate between theistic Buddhists and atheistic Buddhists?"

 

err, don't ask, don't tell? (tongue in cheek - I doubt most unit leaders or CO's would want to go there, though.)

 

Merlyn, I find Michael Newdow to be an interesting figure and personally I believe he received the short end of the stick in terms of being denied standing. But really, I hope you have better ammunition than this example. Michael Newdow as a religious leader is a little like Oliver North as a beacon of virtue.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes, a religion started by a medical doctor is ridiculous - much better to be founded by someone translating golden plates by looking through a hat, or a science fiction writer, or a religion created so a king could remarry, or a religion founded by someone who married a nine-year-old as his forth wife. That's what *real* religions are about.

[packsaddle]

Yes, then there's Newdow. While I agree with restoration of the pledge to the original form I also recognize that this is a trivial matter and may be a distraction from more important issues regarding government discrimination based on religion.

 

His church is another thing, however. Yes, by establishing a legal church he and his members should be recognized by the BSA religious club.

However, as a scientist my caution lights come on whenever I read anyone claiming to possess 'the truth', Newdow included.

 

I recognize that Newdow's church is one of the very few that have ideas open to scientific examination and test. This alone, however, is enough to pose a logical inconsistency for them because 'the truth' (as understood by most other religions) is neither subject to test nor subject to change should evidence show it NOT to be 'the truth'. Newdow's 'truth' is subject to critical test and as such is automatically recognized by HIM as not necessarily absolute. This uncertainty places Newdow's 'truth' in a quite different category from the so-called 'truth' of other religions that are based on supernatural spirits. In this sense, not only does he have a logically weak idea behind his church, but he also loses the advantage that other religions have which do not rely on rational thought at all and are therefore immune to reasoning.

That said, I still think his church members ought to be allowed into the club.

Lisabob, he may be eccentric but, as opposed to North, I don't think he's a liar, and therefore I would place him a little higher in the role-model hierarchy.

 

Merlyn, actually I think traditional religion IS better founded in myth. Otherwise, as Augustine cautioned many centuries ago, religion might otherwise be subject to objective examination and found to be incorrect - precisely the way things went regarding Copernicus and Galileo and the way things are going today regarding modern biology.

While Freud argued that ignorance was a poor basis for a belief, I note that it might be a necessary component of belief for many persons.

[evmori]

Michael Newdow as a religious leader is a little like Oliver North as a beacon of virtue.

 

Good observation & very accurate Lisabob.

 

Michael Newdow's "religion" is nothing more than a mockery of Christianity.

 

So Merlyn, are you a member? And if not, why not?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Ed, unless you can read his mind you do not know that Newdow is 'mocking' anything. What you do know is that you disagree with him and that his presence as a religious figure may offend you in some way.

I urge you to look around at your fellow Christians if you want to see true mockery of your faith. If mockery IS his intent, Newdow is profoundly incompetent compared to the things that avowed Christians do and say from time to time.