article: Potomac Falls woman removed from son’s Boy Scout troop

[Tampa Turtle]

I would argue about the sincere Agnostic.

[moosetracker]

Well, I would not shield my child from learning about the Catholic faith and not allow anyone to talk to him about it.

 

He would learn about it from his relatives from his fathers side of the family, and also from his father. If on a holiday he was at his Grandparents, he has gone off to a Christmas service or an Easter service once or twice.

 

So raise him as a Catholic no.. Allow him to explore what the Catholic faith is about if interested, as well as any other faith he had an interest in.. Yes. Be fine if he chose to be Catholic with his wandering and exploring. Rather then dis-owning him over the decision. Yes..

 

So that is to the best of my ability.. I am at peace with that decision. As said, you may disagree with the conclusion between the priest & I, and maybe the priest & I came to the wrong conclusion. But, as stated, being a preist does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing issues then you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think & interpret.. But, being human can still get it wrong.

 

Remember this is simply a debate. You cannot see ways around words, because you wish to be rigid and see only the here and the now. I can see opportunity for compromise and adjustments because I wish to be accommodating to people with a different opinion then me. I see the possibilities because I choose to. Will BSA change tomorrow on my say so, No. The atheist issue will probably take longer to resolve then the homosexual issue.. Because as you say it means two parties coming to terms with a compromise that allows both to stay true to their own separate values. Those are hard for people to do.

 

Currently we have such a debate over the Pledge of Allegiance.. The war is being created by the atheists who are not looking for compromise to an acceptable solution that makes those who believe in God and those who dont live in harmony together. I understand their argument over separation of church & state, but I guess from my own perspective God is not church.. God is a belief with no need for church, church just aids some people come to term with God, but church is not God.. So they are trying to do away with the belief of many because they do not agree with it..

 

I dont see why atheists would need the words under God removed from the pledge for their benefit.. They can just choose not to say those words, or if in a group of fellow atheists go back to the original pledge that did not have the words in it.. They do not need to take away my right to say the words under God in order for them to use the pledge.. That means that they would need to learn tolerance to stand in silence and simply hear others say it.. And others must respect their wish not to say it..

 

So I can see a compromise of letting Atheists be silent for a section of the pledge, and allowing those who believe in God to say them.. I know you are jumping up and down in your seat and seeing red, because you are too ridged to entertain the notion.. And I know there are currently more that would be on your side today if we took a vote, then on my side. The war of the Pledge of Allegiance by the atheists would head the fear of them getting in an nipping away at the Scout Oath.. They would need to practice tolerance themselves, for that fear to go away.

 

I see allowing Homosexuals into the BSA as being the easier wall that will come down, and the one that will be first.. Simply because morally straight are words that have different meanings to different people, our words are not I promise to be a heterosexual.. They are simply morally straight.. And as more & more states allow same sex marriages, this will be seen more and more as acceptable.. Currently we are abiding by one groups opinion of what morally straight is, while ignoring all the other meanings of morally straight or even caring to spell out what other actions are considered deviant reasons to be booted out of BSA, because it would take snooping into everyones private lives in places that we care to not wander.

[Gary_Miller]

Merlyn_LeRoy, "That works for your definition, too."

 

Using Websters Definition. How does an organization choosing its membership based on principles and standards on which the organization wants in it membership fit into the definition of a bigot?

 

Merlyn_LeRoy, "Fortunately, I'm not affiliated with the BSA."

 

Why is it that some people not affiliated with an organization seem to think is OK to try and force an organization to change/lower its principles and standards in order for those who don't hold those principles and standards can become members?

 

Merlyn_LeRoy, "Would that be the same way thousands of public schools agreed to violate the constitution back when they chartered BSA units that excluded atheists?"

 

Violate the constitution? How does a school allowing BSA to use of their facility violate the constitution?

 

 

[Beavah]

But, as stated, being a preist does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing issues then you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think & interpret.. But, being human can still get it wrong.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

So moosetracker what do you think about...

 

"Being a doctor does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing medical issues than you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think and interpret. But, being human, he can still get it wrong."

 

Do you agree with that statement?

 

I think we can all agree with being human we still get things wrong. Except perhaps Mrs. Beavah, she's always right . But I'm not sure it follows that people who have spent years studying and practicing in a discipline of any kind are therefore no better at that discipline than anybody else. Yah, yah, we see that in politics sometimes. "My opinion is worth as much as those scientists.". "I know more than those Nobel Prize winning economists."

 

But is that the position that you really want to take?

 

Beavah

[shortridge]

Physicians deal in facts, items that are testable and verifiable. The clergy deals with faith. Big difference.

[moosetracker]

Agree with shortridge, but also Beavah agree with your statement.

 

With Doctors, many many people go for second opinions, or third, or fourth.. Sometimes the person is a hypochondriac.. But, sometimes it saves their lives. Doctors can be wrong. Other times people listen to their Doctors and die, or are permanently hurt..

Doctors can do their best, and can get it wrong.. Also as science learns more, we find what used to be considered correct procedures were wrong, and maybe even harmful.

 

Thing is when Doctors are wrong, the end results, or more learned science will prove them out.

When ministers are wrong, no one can call them on it, except for your opening your eyes and ears and listening to others, and making your own decisions. Rather then just following..

 

With all the differing views of Religion out their.. Someone must have it wrong, regardless of their years of study.

 

You either believe God is benevolent regardless of which faith you pick, or you have to believe you take a gamble on the religion you choose whether you are going to heven or hell..

 

 

Medicine can have different views on treatment also, but over time the quack remedies dont stand the test of time.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gary_Miller writes:

Using Websters Definition. How does an organization choosing its membership based on principles and standards on which the organization wants in it membership fit into the definition of a bigot?

 

Easily; if the "standards" are bigoted. A whites-only organization may say their "standards" require that only whites can join, but I'll still call them bigoted.

 

Why is it that some people not affiliated with an organization seem to think is OK to try and force an organization to change/lower its principles and standards in order for those who don't hold those principles and standards can become members?

 

You'd have to ask someone trying to force such an organization; I've only forced the government to follow the constitution, and I've exercised my first amendment rights to criticize the BSA quite a bit, but I've done nothing to force the BSA to change their bigoted "principles" or "standards."

 

Merlyn_LeRoy, "Would that be the same way thousands of public schools agreed to violate the constitution back when they chartered BSA units that excluded atheists?"

 

Violate the constitution? How does a school allowing BSA to use of their facility violate the constitution?

 

Please note the difference:

chartered BSA units is what I said. This is not the same as "allowing BSA to use of their facility."

 

When public schools CHARTERED units, they were violating the constitution.

 

[BrentAllen]

moosetracker: "When ministers are wrong, no one can call them on it, except for your opening your eyes and ears and listening to others, and making your own decisions. Rather then just following.."

 

As a Christian, I believe God speaks to us through the Bible, through the church, through prayer and through circumstance. If a minister is advocating something that goes against the Bible, the elders of the church should recognize this and confront him. If your "inner voice" is telling you something that goes against the Bible and/or the beliefs of your church, you should question it. The guidance received through the Bible, the church, prayer and circumstance should sync up, providing markers that you are on the path God has laid out for you.

 

People and society have changed; God's word has not.

[moosetracker]

God's word has not changed, it has just been interpreted, reinterpreted, and mis-interpreted..

 

And the key to what you say is sync up to YOUR CHURCH.. But your church's word will not sync up to Gods word from the church down the street. And they definately will not sync up with the words of some Fringe Mormon coloney, that teaches polygamy, nor a fringe Muslim group that teaches you to kill.. The Mormon's religion does not sync up to a fringe Mormon.. Nor a Muslim to a Fringe Muslim..

 

Churches have split off into two different groups based on two different interpretations.

 

Sure you should find something syncing up with YOUR CHURCH, (but not always), who set the rules of your church in the first place? Follow it back, it was someone in history who interpreted the bible.. And you may find you are a branch of a split or two from differing opinion.. You may have roots that go way back to not being able to name the founder, or you may be able to name the founder, and his church and followers just came from insperation, a dream whatever, a belief in his inner voice as that of being God, or a claim of a visitation by an angel of the Lord (With no proof)..

 

You may follow Christ's teachings, and I believe in Christ.. But everyone has taken the stories of Jesus and interpreted them.. The original printing of the Bible, started as an interpretation.. So even if you decide you are following Jesus's teachings they have been padded with interpretation..

 

Jews have been around for a long time.. Great roots in their religion.. But they do not even believe in the teachings of Jesus.. They have broken off into many branches of differing interpretation over the years.. They also are padded with interpretation..

 

But, until your church has another large division of ideas, I will agree.. YOUR Church's beliefs should be in sync.

[packsaddle]

I continue to be reminded..."The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

[Beavah]

Physicians deal in facts, items that are testable and verifiable. The clergy deals with faith. Big difference.

 

Balderdash. Physicians deal with complex diagnoses and competing claims and such all the time. While there might be an underlying fact about the cause of some symptoms, that doesn't mean that is at all clear. And often enough, there aren't even any recognized underlying "facts" to many syndromes.

 

For all but the simplest of things, the only difference between a "fact" and "faith" is how much someone believes it.

 

When doctors are wrong, the only folks that are likely to bring 'em around are the medical community. The other experts in the area who are workin' and carin' for people and doing research. That, and just observin' for themselves that something doesn't work. When ministers are wrong, the only folks that are likely to call 'em on it are their religious community. The other experts in the area who are workin' and carin' for people and doing research. That, and just observin' for themselves that something doesn't work or doesn't comport with the bible or other traditions of their faith.

 

All human knowledge is the same, eh? Doesn't matter if it's science or theology or psychology or economics. Yeh have a community of people who specialize in the area and who know a lot about it, and those who don't. Yeh have norms within the discipline or the community that help teach new folks and balance out individual zeal or misinformation, and yeh have the few inspired geniuses and the bigger group of nutjobs and wackos who operate outside da norms. Yeh have people who are very good at what they do, and those who aren't as good.

 

As it happens, your priest friend is a part of very disciplined profession as these things go. Yeh gotta give it to da Catholics for that.

 

Da question yeh have to ask yourself is what about your own bias causes you to privilege one group over another? To make broad, sweeping claims about the limits and restrictions of one branch of knowledge while buying others without the same level of scrutiny? For physicians, yeh recognize that an individual doc may be wrong, but you'd still turn to other doctors for additional opinions. But not for ministers. And I bet yeh privilege other disciplines too, eh? Things like economics and psychology, even though they are much younger and less-developed fields than, say, Christian theology. And they have their "camps" and fundamental disagreements in much da way Christians do. But I'd bet you'd value a psychologist over a priest in their respective fields.

 

That says a lot about you, eh? Not very much about da disciplines.

 

Confrontin' our own prejudices is hard. But it begins by lookin' very carefully at what things we accept as "fact" without question. Because that's where our faith really is.

 

Beavah

 

 

[moosetracker]

But, I will talk to ministers and Priests and rabbi's, and even your occasional witch.. I have nothing against listening to them.. Geez.. as stated my father was a minister, you don't think I could get away from listening to him do you?.. I didn't form my opinion and cut my father off..

 

I even left home and joined liberal church communities, for years until I moved to an area that I couldn't find a church liberal minded enough, and then I just discuss religion with many different folks of different beliefs.. Slowly I formed the belief that church wasn't needed. Then after 9/11, I was convinced of that.

 

I don't cut off religious discussion, I will enter into it.. I will not tell you that you are wrong to find comfort in your religion, or that if your beliefs give you comfort, that is wrong.

 

I will just tell you, your religion is not the one and only belief out there, and that your religion is wrong to point out other lifestyles as immoral when they are not causing anyone any harm, and they can have that lifestyle and still be productive and outstanding citizens. And I will not accept your argument your religion is right, because it is always right, because all of its beliefs where obtained straight from Gods mouth.

 

If I can be a friend of a black man, a Polish person, a Jewish person and a Muslim.. But I do not join their community and do not become black, Polish, Jewish or Muslim.. Does this make me prejudice?

 

Sure I will go to Doctors, I have also visited dietician when my son was sick to see if a change of diet would help, Psychiatrists, chiropractors, physical therapists.. And I will talk to friends and do my own self study.. I figured out my son had Dystonia, and gave the Doctor my suspicions and saw his eyes light up with true excitement as to the perfect diagnosis after over 6 months of them not having a clue. Does that make me prejudice of the medical profession because I did not stay with one Doctor, or sought a solution outside the medical profession..

[Beavah]

f I can be a friend of a black man, a Polish person, a Jewish person and a Muslim.. But I do not join their community and do not become black, Polish, Jewish or Muslim.. Does this make me prejudice?

 

Nah. Nor does it make yeh not prejudiced either.

 

What does as an outside observer smack of bias is when yeh work with doctors on a diagnosis for your son, but yeh refuse to work with other folks with expertise in a different area. In da one case, yeh bring ideas and additional information back to share, in the other, yeh dismiss any need to consider their expertise at all.

 

There are, after all, a bunch of different competing theories of gravity, eh? Like all human knowledge, physics isn't cut-and-dried "fact". We humans are too frail and limited to fully comprehend any of da real mysteries of the universe. There are, for almost any event in history, more than a few competing interpretations or beliefs. Neither of those things mean that experts in physics shouldn't be respected and trusted for their expertise, or experts in history.

 

Why should it be any different for experts in religion and theology, eh? Unless yeh happen to have a bias against that field, of course.

 

Wars have been fought in da name of nations far, far, far more often than in da name of religion, eh? Does that prevent yeh from being patriotic? From supporting a duty to country? From choosing to be loyal to one nation that yeh feel is at least somewhat worthy of your loyalty, because bein' part of a community is a worthy thing?

 

Why should it be any different for religion, unless yeh happen to have a bias against one and not the other?

 

I can't guess why 9/11 caused yeh to lose your faith, eh. But perhaps, just maybe, yeh used a single piece of evidence, and a smidge of your own bias on da issue, to come to da wrong conclusion.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

I came back to this thread, because I did not want to hijack the other thread.. Just support Basement there. Its a good subject with a slightly different angle.

 

In that thread I said.. He was a little overly critical of your arguement that your God tells you to pass judgement on a group of people, and consider them unworthy, sinful and immoral..

 

Base - Religious people do not hate, that would not be the Christen thing to do.. They simply pass judgement.. They need some measuring tool to figure out who is a sinner, so that they can compare and know that they are not. Remember, it is not them who is condemning.. It is their God, and they must follow his lead.

 

I am so happy my God is kinder.. My God tells me to respectfully disagree with their God.

 

To which Barry strangely replied.. You can use a capital "G" with your god?

 

 

In Answer to that

 

Small g in God, must be part of your belief Barry.. I have always seen it spelled God.. I just trapsed around the internet and did not see a single god.. Even Abel Magwitch in her copied statement shows the word God. Duty to God..

 

Here are a few other snippets all from differing sites:

 

beliefs about the existence of God(s)

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself

believed God was the initiator or designer

I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians

(I thought you were LDS Barry ?? This is specifically from an LDS site.)

They have taken my God away from me

 

(I wonder if the statement to love your neighbor as yourself, comes with a disclaimer of only if they are heterosexual and believe in god)

[Beavah]

Ideas of what is moral and what is not between the Christian faiths is probably the most common reason for the split in religion into all it's various branches.

 

Nonsense. Yeh need to go back and look at da history. At least if yeh believe in that sort of expertise .

 

Da first Christian Schism between the Greek Church and the Roman Church was based on a picky theological dispute over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, or just from da Father. And on the date of Easter. Which of course is silly, it was really a political dispute between Rome and Constantinople. Either way, it had nuthin' to do with "what is moral and what is not".

 

That tradition continued through most Christian history. Splits come because of very human and political failings, not really issues of morality. In da Reformation, questions of salvation and then predestination, or whether the King can authorize his own divorce. It's almost never about morality. It's about people and politics.

 

Christianity as a whole is in resounding agreement about morality, an agreement it by and large shares with traditional Judaism and much of Islam. Only in harder "edge cases" do we really have any disputes, and in most of those it's really confusion that comes from non-religious cultural contamination, whether that be southern slavery & prejudice or western promiscuity or da democratic notion that every individual's voice should be equal regardless of whether they know anything.

 

Beavah