What does nonsectarian mean to you?

[SeattlePioneer]

<< It means not making rules that favor one religions beliefs over that of another religion.. It means not forcing one religion to follow the belief system of another religion.. It means hands off in the any differing viewpoints of what is moral and what is not, as well as if Jesus is or is not the son of God, or if there are many Gods, or if your higher power isn't even considered a god.. IT MEANS HANDS OFF.. >>

 

 

 

Oh, balogney, Moosetracker.

 

You recite the preferred position of atheists and the Supreme Court, which is to restrict or eliminate all religious expression in the public square. The only religious discussion to be accepted is that of atheists, on the theory that THEIR religious beliefs don't constitute a religion, and should therefore have a monopoly of expression in the public square.

 

Of course, that's unreasonable and absurd.

 

What REAL diversity involves is that everyone is entitled to and encouraged to express their religious and moral beliefs, and to struggle to have them accepted by the community at large.

 

 

[moosetracker]

You have conviently misinterpreted Settle.. I don't wish to restrict anyones religious expression.. ANYONE's... unlike the conservative christion branch who wishes to enforce everyone to thier religious viewpoint.. So go out and pray 5 times a day, I even support you getting that time during work or school hours.. How long has smokers been allowed to take umpteen times with smokers breaks.. Well I think praying is a much healthier habit.. But, don't force me to stop what I am doing 5 times a day.. If your religious group does not want to marry homosexuals.. I will support that.. If you don't want them as members of your church go for it.. Just don't tell me that I must also treat homosexuals a pond scum.. Personally I am fine with local option which means, I will accept YOUR troop to not accept homosexual children or adult leaders.. Just don't tell ME that MY TROOP has to follow YOUR beliefs..

 

It is both those who insist that all units MUST discriminate against homosexuals and yes the other side that insist that all units MUST accept homosexuals.. These are the groups not respecting other peoples religious beliefs..

 

BSA, let the CO's decide for themselves based on the IH's beliefs, and HANDS OFF.. And then let parents decide which units they wish their children to particpate in due to their beliefs and everyone HANDS OFF..

[packsaddle]

You have conviently misinterpreted Settle.. I don't wish to restrict anyones religious expression.. ANYONE's... unlike the conservative christion branch who wishes to enforce everyone to thier religious viewpoint.. So go out and pray 5 times a day, I even support you getting that time during work or school hours.. How long has smokers been allowed to take umpteen times with smokers breaks.. Well I think praying is a much healthier habit.. But, don't force me to stop what I am doing 5 times a day.. If your religious group does not want to marry homosexuals.. I will support that.. If you don't want them as members of your church go for it.. Just don't tell me that I must also treat homosexuals a pond scum.. Personally I am fine with local option which means, I will accept YOUR troop to not accept homosexual children or adult leaders.. Just don't tell ME that MY TROOP has to follow YOUR beliefs..

 

It is both those who insist that all units MUST discriminate against homosexuals and yes the other side that insist that all units MUST accept homosexuals.. These are the groups not respecting other peoples religious beliefs..

 

BSA, let the CO's decide for themselves based on the IH's beliefs, and HANDS OFF.. And then let parents decide which units they wish their children to particpate in due to their beliefs and everyone HANDS OFF..

Did you miss this part of Seattle Pioneer's post? "...everyone is entitled to and encouraged to express their religious and moral beliefs, and to struggle to have them accepted by the community at large."

What do you think that "struggle" is? It is as if merely having a belief and not worrying about what the "community at large" thinks about it...isn't enough. Instead, "everyone is entitled to and encouraged to express their religious and moral beliefs, and to struggle to have them accepted by the community at large."

I'm reminded again of that quote by TheScout, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together"

[moosetracker]

Packsaddle I did see it, I chose not to comment.. Good thing, you probably interepeted it better then I.. I took it as conservatives have stated plenty of time on this forum.. He who has the biggest stick gets to rule over those who don't. So you can have beliefs different those of conservative religions, but as long as they can scream the loudest, make the most obnoxious threats, and pay the biggest bribes, all other religious beliefs must bow to them, and practice their beliefs..

 

Not very nonsectarian if you ask me.. But, it is what most conservatives believe (at least if things go their way..) If things look like they might be slipping from being the ruling class, well then they will take their marbles and go home.

 

Maybe yours & my interpretations are similar at that.. One religion must conqure the other religions, because there is no way that they can just except each others differences and live in harmany with each other..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

SeattlePioneer writes:

"You recite the preferred position of atheists and the Supreme Court, which is to restrict or eliminate all religious expression in the public square. The only religious discussion to be accepted is that of atheists, on the theory that THEIR religious beliefs don't constitute a religion, and should therefore have a monopoly of expression in the public square."

 

Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

 

[acco40]

Yeah, but just like the fact that a den meeting or troop meeting should not be the place for Mary Kay selling, asking if I want to buy some trinket for little Johnny's sport team or having an investment broker try to sell me securities - proselytizing doesn't have a place at most scout meetings. Go express your religious and moral beliefs elsewhere.

[ThomasJefferson]

No, a sect is not " religious branch of which isn't large enough to qualify as a denomination." It is a schism from a larger branch, but in common parlance (and most dictionaries, including theological ones) it means the same as a denomination; thus, "non-sectarian" means the same as "non-denominational."

 

You claim that "BSA is filled with strictly Christians-only practices such as praying before meals in a Christian style, holding Sunday morning services at camps, removing hats and bowing heads to pray, and saying "Amen" at the end of any prayer. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Zoroastrians, and Shintoists do none of these things. This is all Christian behavior."

 

No. Almost all religions, Abrahamic or not, pray before meals, and most include the same elements are found as in "Christian-style" prayers: saying thanks to God for the meal, for the company around the table, and the other blessings He provides. Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Muslims, B'ahai, Shintoists, and Hindus pray before meals.

 

Most BSA summer camps I have attended provide religious services for adherents of non-Christian faiths IF there are enough members at the camp, and IF the appropriate cleric is available to conduct the ceremony (if a cleric is required). As most camps are in rural areas, this is not always possible for all denominations or sects. If the individuals wished to conduct the appropriate observances on their own times, and on their own sabbath day or day of worship, accommodations would certainly be made. Faiths that do not remove their hats for prayer, if they are members of a troop, will usually advise the troops of the difference in modes of worship through the troop's chaplain.

 

In and of itself, "Amen" does not have any religious significance. It is simply a word of Affirmation in the Hebrew language that means, "So be it," or "truly," or "verily," or "it is so." Most religions, including non-Abrahamic ones, include such statements of affirmation, so it is not an alien concept to people of faith. It is used by Jews (in fact, it is commanded to be used at the end of any blessing, even a Christian one, outside of liturgical settings, such as a non-sectarian prayer). It is used by Muslims ( آمين‎, ʾÄÂmÄ«n).

 

BSA volunteers rarely have degrees in Comparative Religious Studies, but they do the best they can to treat people of other faiths with the respect and courtesy they deserve. If they give offense, people of good will understand that there was no intent to insult, and will forgive them.

 

You also claim that "Only the Abrahamic religions believe in a jealous God that is personable and reacts negatively to lack of belief. Buddhists don't even necessarily believe in any spiritual anything at all nor do Confucians or Daoists."

 

If by "personable" you mean a God that is a person, not a God that is pleasant at parties, many religions who believe in a God or gods react negatively to lack of belief on behalf of their god. Buddhists by definition do believe in something spiritual, in that they deny a strictly materialist conception of reality. Karma, accepted by most Buddhists as well as Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs is not a materialist concept and is spiritual in nature, as well as Buddhist conceptions of the existence and continuances of the Buddha on other planes of existence.

 

"I do not understand the Scout Law's insistence that we respect the beliefs of others. I think disagreeing with someone's beliefs is to not respect them by default. If you think someone believes nonsense, you cannot respect their beliefs. You can, however, be respectful of those people and their customs and not criticize them or insult them. And doing that sometimes means not praying or holding Sunday services...BSA is a Euro-American Christians club which says they want to welcome all faiths, but is stupid in execution and fails."

 

And curiously, an insistence on "respect" for all religions leads to a recommendation that favors atheists only. I refer you to Forrest Gump's philosophy on stupidity in this regard.

AZMike: Well I am certainly won over by your friendly statements that religion has played a vital role in make you a very nice person. LOL Religion at work here.

[qwazse]

This question came up as my newest youth was reading the BSA application. (I like this kid ... real VP Administration material.) She asked me what non-sectarian meant in the middle of the meeting.

 

I used the "showing no preference in relgion" definition and went on to point out that we want you to bring your faith to scouting and we believe you'll grow in that faith as you see others express theirs.

 

She didn't have any questions about the rest of application. Which brought something home to me. Most of us grew up hearing about the Irish and Lebanese civil wars. In college I met many of the victims of those conflicts. Sectarian had a visceral meaning to it that our kids hopefully will never know. Not because that type of violence has dissipated, but because the media is so diffuse these days.

 

Anyway, the fact that we have to define non-sectarianism may just be due to it being so ubiquitous.

[Rick_in_CA]

<< It means not making rules that favor one religions beliefs over that of another religion.. It means not forcing one religion to follow the belief system of another religion.. It means hands off in the any differing viewpoints of what is moral and what is not' date=' as well as if Jesus is or is not the son of God, or if there are many Gods, or if your higher power isn't even considered a god.. IT MEANS HANDS OFF.. >> Oh, balogney, Moosetracker. You recite the preferred position of atheists and the Supreme Court, which is to restrict or eliminate all religious expression in the public square. The only religious discussion to be accepted is that of atheists, on the theory that THEIR religious beliefs don't constitute a religion, and should therefore have a monopoly of expression in the public square. Of course, that's unreasonable and absurd. What REAL diversity involves is that everyone is entitled to and encouraged to express their religious and moral beliefs, and to struggle to have them accepted by the community at large. [/quote']

 

SeattlePioneer, I do not understand your point. Please help me understand, what does anything that Moosetracker wrote here have anything to do with atheism?

 

[Scouter99]

Anyway' date=' the fact that we have to define non-sectarianism may just be due to it being so ubiquitous.[/quote']

 

I think that's true. I think that we can never know how deeply we are indebted to the founding fathers for ingraining both religious freedom and separation of church/state into our gov't and thereby culture before the rise of nationalism and the sectarianism that came with it. We just can't really imagine saying that you can't be an American if you're not a Baptist, much less going next door and jabbing our neighbors' eyes out because they're a different religion. For another thing, we rarely see non- in front of the word, and it's clear that most of the responders here don't even have a clear understanding of what sectarianism is. Let's look at the contrast: In France, the largest Scouting association is a federation of a scouting organization for protestants, one for Catholics, one for Muslims, one for Jews, and one that is inter-religious. Can you imagine? It's ludicrous in our estimation. Russia is worse. Austria is similar. etc etc.

[SeattlePioneer]

<< Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

>>

 

 

The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square, but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square.

 

THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution.

 

Nothing new about that, of course.

 

The Supreme Court is the oligarchy that displaced government of the people, by the people, whenever it chooses to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

<< Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

>>

 

 

The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square, but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square.

 

THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution.

 

Nothing new about that, of course.

 

The Supreme Court is the oligarchy that displaced government of the people, by the people, whenever it chooses to do so.

 

 

 

 

"The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square"

 

Really??!! No churches allowed anywhere? Strange, I can still see them in the public square.

Illegal to pray in public? Not true at all.

What bizarro world do you live in? What, exactly, is prohibited or restricted in your world?

 

"but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square."

 

Yeah, baloney again. Name me any situation where atheism is permitted that Christianity isn't allowed.

 

"THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution."

 

That's your bizarro-world, where atheism, somehow, has "free reign" in the public square while Christianity has been vacuumed out.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[King Ding Dong]

<< Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

>>

 

 

The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square, but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square.

 

THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution.

 

Nothing new about that, of course.

 

The Supreme Court is the oligarchy that displaced government of the people, by the people, whenever it chooses to do so.

 

 

 

 

It never ceases to amaze me that people think that Christianity will forever and always be the majority religion in the US. If these people get their way and establish the US as a theocracy what happens when say some other religion like radical Islam gains enough power here. I for one do not want my descendants to have to walk around in burkas or get acid thrown on their face to preserve honor.

 

They just can't get it through their heads that the separation of church and state preserves their rights to practice their religion, not prevent it.

 

My only conclusion from all this nonsense is that like Sarah Palin they truly believe they will see the end of days in their lifetime. So what happens to future generations does not matter, they only live in the moment.

[ThomasJefferson]

<< Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

>>

 

 

The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square, but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square.

 

THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution.

 

Nothing new about that, of course.

 

The Supreme Court is the oligarchy that displaced government of the people, by the people, whenever it chooses to do so.

 

 

 

 

Apparently Christians in the US are so used to being an unopposed majority that they interpret not getting their way with being oppressed.

[packsaddle]

TJ, what good is being in the majority if you don't get to dictate the terms for 'fairness'?