The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[Eagledad]

>>We are all animals and thus we wish to procreate with the fittest and we wish to survive. Working together, getting along, etc have little to do with those urges. Criminal behavior (that will often refer to as base) is more close to our innate behavior. Thus, the key to the other laws is a sense of reverence. I do not think that the program would be the same without the 12th point.

[evmori]

Well vol_scouter, in my opinion organizations that denigrate atheists like the BSA lead directly to attitudes such as yours, just as organizations that exclude Jews end up having lots of members who have unfavorable views of Jews and Judaism.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, Merlyn! Based on that opinion, organizations that only include atheists would end up having members who have unfavorable views of anyone who believes in God!

[acco40]

Vol_Scouter - I think you hit the nail on the head. The age old question - can one be moral and ethical if one does not believe in God?

 

I think that many major religions teach that if it was not for religion, yes, all of mankind would be no different from the animals. Yet, the more we learn about animals - they do care for their young, have great social networks, etc. so I wonder? Is it our ego or apposable thumbs or divine intervention that makes man so different from the "animals?"

 

Some believe that we can act civilized in spite of religion (I'm not one). They proclaim that much of man's suffering was due to religious strife.

 

So the debate continues. For those who believe that a belief in a higher power is essential to our morality doesn't that mean that if a person is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave and Clean that he then must be reverent? In otherwords - keeping reverent in the Scout Law would be redundant. And for those who don't believe that a belief in a higher power is essential to our morality - why have reverent in our Scout Law?

[Trevorum]

vol_scouter says, "I do believe that society's value system comes from religions (even if from false beliefs) and not from basic human nature."

 

Anthropologists suspect it is more likely that religions are cultural developments from fundamental human value systems.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

If you read my post carefully, I did not denigrate atheists.

 

And if you read MY post carefully, I did not say you denigrate atheists; I said the BSA denigrates atheists.

 

Your dislike of religion makes it difficult to accept other viewpoints.

 

And your dislike of atheism makes it difficult for you to accept non-theistic moral systems.

 

I did not say that atheists are depraved, immoral, or in any way bad.

 

Hmm, if someone said "I do believe that if mankind turns entirely to Judaism that it will descend into depravity," doesn't that sound like Jews can't be good people if the whole world is Jewish? You said exactly that about atheists, and it doesn't sound any better.

 

For a well educated attorney, I find it sad that you feel that you must resort to implying that I am anti-semitic because I do not share your belief system.

 

First, I'm not an attorney, I'm a computer programmer.

Second, I did not imply that you are anti-semitic; you don't understand analogies.

 

I as said, I have not joined several clubs where I would like to play golf because they do not allow some to be members: i.e. blacks and Jews.

 

So you won't join clubs that exclude blacks and Jews, but excluding atheists is OK?

 

To imply that because private organizations have membership requirements they foment hate and discrimination is simply not true.

 

I'm not saying this is true in the general case, but it is in the case of the BSA.

 

So membership requirements do not determine anything but who can join.

 

If that's true, why don't you join clubs that exclude blacks and Jews? It's just their membership requirements, right?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad, which religions have been consistent since their inception in moral teachings about slavery and homosexuality?

 

And since the BSA has no restrictions on the religious beliefs of members, for every moral question X, one member's religion can say "X is moral," while another's says "X is immoral," so how does the BSA use religion as a moral foundation when it has no basic tenets?

[acco40]

That's easy Merlyn! It believes in "traditional" values and everyone knows that traditional values are the good ones and not the new bad ones.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

I do understand analogies and implied meanings! I do not even dislike most atheists that I know. I have not seen you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs but in my previous post I admitted that you mat be right - so who is blinded by dislike. To insinuate that the BSA foments hate and discrimination becaise of its' membership standards is ridiculous. It shows that your intolerance to others beliefs. If you respected others, you would not continue to be agitating people on this website - I doubt that they are going to atheist sites and irritating the people on the site. You lack respect for others and their views.

[packsaddle]

"We are all animals and thus we wish to procreate with the fittest and we wish to survive."

vol_scouter, Actually, fitness is determined after the fact by measuring the success of perpetuating genetic traits. There is no way to determine this a priori and thus while some of us might THINK we're selecting fit mates, this is largely an erroneous (but delightful) illusion. And usually it is that delight that is so compelling, not some calculated judgement on fitness.

And this question about the DRP is not an attempt to remove the 12th point. There is no other part of the scout law that gets this kind of attention in the application process. There is no Declaration of Thrifty Principle, for example. Absent the DRP, everything would merely return to the way it was before and the 12th point would still be there.

[Eagledad]

>>Eagledad, which religions have been consistent since their inception in moral teachings about slavery and homosexuality?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

I do understand analogies and implied meanings!

 

I disagree; if you understood my analogy, you wouldn't have thought I had implied you were anti-semitic. My analogy drew a parallel between denigration of atheists and similar denigration of Jews.

 

I have not seen you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs but in my previous post I admitted that you mat be right - so who is blinded by dislike.

 

What does one have to do with the other?

 

To insinuate that the BSA foments hate and discrimination becaise of its' membership standards is ridiculous.

 

I don't think it is; and the BSA does more than just exclude atheists, their DRP implies that only people who believe in god can be "the best kinds of citizens," which means atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. The BSA saw no problem in having public schools discriminate against atheists on their behalf. When Darrell Lambert was thrown out for being an atheist, it was because he responded to a direct insult against atheists by a BSA member.

 

It shows that your intolerance to others beliefs.

 

I think your attitude towards atheists shows your own intolerance.

 

If you respected others, you would not continue to be agitating people on this website

 

I think the term is "uppity."

 

You lack respect for others and their views.

 

I certainly don't respect your views on atheists.

 

Assuming you're Christian, does this sound insulting to you?

"I do believe that if mankind turns entirely to Christianity that it will descend into depravity."

 

If I've guessed your religion incorrectly, feel free to rephrase it using your religion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

You've taken slavery out of context again. I know that has been explained to you before, so we can leave it at that.

 

"out of context"? There's a context where slavery is moral? And I can't seem to find when this has been explained to me before, so please give a thumbnail summary.

 

As for homosexuality, I think most of the religions have stayed pretty consistent over time.

 

Do most religions still advocate the death penalty for homosexuality? Maybe some branches of Islam and Christianity, but I'd say a lot of changing has been going on with a lot of religions on that point.

 

In fact, way back when, one of my history teachers gave an example of how history repeats itself by showing that the decline of nations is preceded with inclusion of homosexuality.

 

And the Roman Empire fell soon after it became official Christian.

 

But getting back to consistency in religion, are you in favor of capital punishment for homosexual acts, as prescribe in Leviticus (and some earlier US laws)?

[evmori]

What's the connection between atheism and Judaism?

 

Maybe the Roman Empire fell because of depravity!

[Eagledad]

So many questions. The best answer for these questions is Religion has stayed pretty consistent over time. Interpretations vary some through time but usually seem to get back to the same basic alignment, which is why history repeats itself.

 

Have a great day.

 

Barry

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So the best answer is to ignore moral issues (e.g. slavery, homosexuality) where many religions have radically changed through time, and just assert that they haven't changed?