Renax127 Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I'm saying what I said. It was pretty clear. I will repeat. If BSA did not mean the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims, then they should not have used the capitalized word God. If they meant just any old god or notion of a higher being not God, then they should use the lower case word god....or even gods. Or you know they might have clarified their position on it by using additional text.Like they have done in explaining that they do not define what god is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Ever wonder why BSA after all these years has used, "...duty to God and my country", rather than "...duty to god(s) and my country"? (trying to do his best Horschack) Oooh, Oooh, I know, I know Mr. Kotter: It's because the people who started the BSA were men whose religious traditions came from the Abrahamic traditions and they used the concept that was most familiar (and the most dominant for the time) to them. It's also yet another one of those contradictions in the Boy Scouts that we all love so much since they also welcome folks in to the fold that don't call their god or gods by the proper noun God (which is just the proper name form of the Abrahamic god (not capitalized on purpose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I'm saying what I said. It was pretty clear. I will repeat. If BSA did not mean the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims, then they should not have used the capitalized word God. If they meant just any old god or notion of a higher being not God, then they should use the lower case word god....or even gods. So you're saying the BSA is lying when they elsewhere state that followers of non-Abrahamic gods can be members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumbymaster Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) BSA can explain away their use of the word God all they want. The known world describes God as this. So if BSA is going to interpret known, accepted words differently to do their moral gymnastics so they don't tick off the minority interest du jour, then I guess my unit can interpret various words they way we want to too. On that basis then @@CalicoPenn *is* allowed to do what he wants within his unit. This is actually one of my major problems with the New Cub Scout Program, in the original drafts, the religious requirements were "faith" which is much more inclusive than the final versions which are "God". The UU had, what I consider to be a pretty good (re)interpretation of God ... http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/higherpower/151278.shtml or specifically as it relates to Scouting (and the Pledge of Alliegance) http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/169563.shtml And the BSA position (which unsurprisingly really didn't seem to answer the question of how, just reaffirmed the notion of "some kind of"). http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/03/belief-in-god-scouting/ So while I will not challenge either the Dictionary nor another's choice to interpret God as a "divine being" or some other personification of intelligence; I also will not challenge a philosophy of "god is in all things" part of all the universe around us; or some other embodiment of life force and spirit that has no personification. My favorite thought exercise to the Athiest, particularly one versed in science, is ... As we speak, there are scientists trying to conduct experiments associated with the speed of light and the "resolution" of the universe. Their hypothesis is that the universe itself is a hologram or simulation (i.e. like the Matrix), with a limited resolution (i.e. some number of x-bit quality) [not to be confused with other hypotheses related to universe being a hologram which trying to show we really are two dimensional and that the 3rd dimension is a holographic projection - a mathematical construct]. In general, the Athiest will express interest, and indicate that that could be true within their "belief" structure. I then pose the next question, if we are a simulation, then someone had to program that simulation - buy our current (Dictionary) definition, wouldn't that person be God? Edited August 7, 2015 by gumbymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizon Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Are we going to review as Originalists or Textualists or by parsing the words of the Founders (This entire argument seems to be in sync with Constitutional Law)? The Buddhist faith has been a part of Scouting since 1920, within 10 years of the BSA starting in the United States. http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs/Buddhist.aspx Or we can look to the writings of Ernest Thomson Seton (one of our Founders), in his book The Gospel of the Redman: http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-Redman-Way-Life/dp/0839535740 Both of these examples from our early days as an organization would indicate to me that God comes in many forms from the perspective of the BSA, and that Reverent's admonition to respect the Faith of others applies to polytheistic faiths along with the Abrahamic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Or you know they might have clarified their position on it by using additional text.Like they have done in explaining that they do not define what god is. So you're saying the BSA is lying when they elsewhere state that followers of non-Abrahamic gods can be members? Look, it's the English language and it's pretty clear. The word God refers to THE God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The word god refers to any other deity other groups see as their supreme beings. If BSA just meant any old god they would have used the lower case version. Forget the word God. Let's take the word "not". When the BSA says we "shall not" do something, are we allowed to interpret what they mean by "not"? Is it a suggestion? A word has a definition. Some have many definitions. But when you capitalize something it is a proper noun and means a specific thing. The Super Bowl is not used the same as super bowl. The President is not the same as the president. God means the Christian, Muslim and Jewish God. If BSA means otherwise they should say so. I suspect they *do* mean otherwise, but they are too cowardly to come out and say so given (at present) 70% of their COs are religious organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumbymaster Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I have a few problems with the position that a dictionary of the "Western" world chooses to define "God" as the prevelant God of the western religeons. I expect that a dictionary written elsewhere, once traslated, may have a different take. A little toungue and cheek, I hope, but also give some thought... As my child, as a part of his Duty to God, studied the religeons of the world (over time), he became very enamored with the Greek Gods. Now, I expect most of us have relligated the Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Norse gods to relics of our past. Fairy tales. And it would surpise some of us that there is still an active Helenistic religeon (the Greek Gods). I believe their response might be "my God(s) came first". In more seriousness though, My concern is, that it seems as if it would be difficult, under the Abrahamic definition of God, to repsect any other religeon that chose to call their god God. Tolerate maybe, but respect? Likewise, while much has been said on the subject of the Buddist religeon allowing a non-belief in a (personified) god; there are also sects of the religeon seeking to discover the name of God; and I don't think that their defintion will match the Abrahamic one - at least not until they succeed and get the answer from the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) When you capitalize the word, the common understanding is that you are referring to the Christian, Muslim and Jewish God. When you use lower case letters you are referring to other gods people might believe in. So if BSA capitalizes the word they are using the former reference, not the latter. If they mean to change their intended meaning in "duty to God" they might want to change their capitalization. And yet, as Horizon again reminds us, BSA has had Buddhist troops since 1920 and specifically recognizes the Buddhist religious award. And Buddhists do not even believe in a creator divinity. Young people need faith. There is abundant evidence that children benefit from the moral compass provided by religious tradition. We acknowledge that faith can become an important part of a child's identity. Each of the major faiths breeds hope, optimism, compassion, and a belief in a better tomorrow. Scouting encourages each young person to begin a spiritual journey through the practice of his or her faith tradition. One of the key tenets of Scouting is "duty to God.While Scouting does not define religious belief for its members, it has been adopted by and works with youth programs of all major faiths. " B.S.A. August 7, 2015 at http://www.scouting.org/Visitor/WhyScouting/FaithTraditions.aspx Edited August 7, 2015 by TAHAWK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 My favorite thought exercise to the Athiest, particularly one versed in science, is ... As we speak, there are scientists trying to conduct experiments associated with the speed of light and the "resolution" of the universe. Their hypothesis is that the universe itself is a hologram or simulation (i.e. like the Matrix), with a limited resolution (i.e. some number of x-bit quality) [not to be confused with other hypotheses related to universe being a hologram which trying to show we really are two dimensional and that the 3rd dimension is a holographic projection - a mathematical construct]. In general, the Athiest will express interest, and indicate that that could be true within their "belief" structure. I then pose the next question, if we are a simulation, then someone had to program that simulation - buy our current (Dictionary) definition, wouldn't that person be God? I'll bite - and my answer is No - that person is NOT God. I will grant that the person MIGHT be a superior being, but there is a vast difference between being a superior being and being a supreme being. Humans like to think of ourselves a superior to cows (and fine, we are - let's not go down that rabbit hole) but we don't require cows to worship us and if humans believe in a supreme being, then they can't also declare themselves to be supreme in relationship to to cows since there is still at least one level above us. Note, I also say that person might be a superior being - if such a person did program that simulation oh so long ago and never evolved technologically or intellectually from that point, then it could be argued that humankind has caught us since there are plenty of humans that have programmed simulated universes of our own (World of Warcraft anyone?). There is also the "Who created the Creator" conundrum - if some superior being created us as a simulation, from whence did that superior being come from - is it not possible that this being is itself a simulation of a being superior to him or her in which case our creator would not be a supreme being because, like humans with cows, there is still at least one level above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumbymaster Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I'll bite - and my answer is No - that person is NOT God. I will grant that the person MIGHT be a superior being, but there is a vast difference between being a superior being and being a supreme being. Humans like to think of ourselves a superior to cows (and fine, we are - let's not go down that rabbit hole) but we don't require cows to worship us and if humans believe in a supreme being, then they can't also declare themselves to be supreme in relationship to to cows since there is still at least one level above us. Note, I also say that person might be a superior being - if such a person did program that simulation oh so long ago and never evolved technologically or intellectually from that point, then it could be argued that humankind has caught us since there are plenty of humans that have programmed simulated universes of our own (World of Warcraft anyone?). There is also the "Who created the Creator" conundrum - if some superior being created us as a simulation, from whence did that superior being come from - is it not possible that this being is itself a simulation of a being superior to him or her in which case our creator would not be a supreme being because, like humans with cows, there is still at least one level above. Fair enough. As was partially my point - the definition of God, Supreme/Superior being, and Creator varries widely. The "who created the creator conundrum" works both ways (i.e. what started the Big Bang) at least until Science's understanding evolves some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2Eagle Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 our Bibles (or Torrah or Koran).... How about your Vedas and Guru Granth Sahib, the sacred texts of the Hindu and Sikh religions respectively? Both of which religions have recognized BSA religious medals, and both of whose texts when translated to English use a capitalized G when referring to a God. I cannot find any source that supports your contention that either BSA or general English language usage of a capitalized G in God indicates reference only to the Abrahamic God. On the contrary it takes seconds to find its usage when referring to other religions' Gods. Here, for instance, is the first line in Wkipedia about Vishnu. "In Hinduism, Vishnu (/ˈvɪʃnuË/; Sanskrit: विषà¥à¤£à¥, Viṣṇu) is the Supreme God Svayam Bhagavan of Vaishnavism (one of the three principal denominations) and one of the three supreme deities (Trimurti). BSA has never claimed to be an exclusively Judeo-Christian organization, nor does it now make any statement that Duty to God refers in any way either exclusively, presumptively, or even initially as meaning a Duty to the Abrahamic God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Look, it's the English language and it's pretty clear. The word God refers to THE God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The word god refers to any other deity other groups see as their supreme beings. If BSA just meant any old god they would have used the lower case version. So you ARE saying only believers of the Abrahamic god are allowed as members. Even though the BSA says differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_in_CA Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I cannot find any source that supports your contention that either BSA or general English language usage of a capitalized G in God indicates reference only to the Abrahamic God. From http://grammarist.com: God is capitalized when it functions as a name. In this use, God is a proper noun like any other name and does not take a definite or indefinite article. But in phrases like the Biblical god and a forgiving god, which do have articles, there’s no need to capitalize god because it is a common noun rather than a name—yet many religiously inclined writers still capitalize the word in these instances. and And when god is used generically or in reference to any but the Judeo-Christian, monotheistic god, it is not capitalized. Hence you get: "The Abrahamic god God". "I believe in God". "The temple is dedicated to the god Zeus". "Buddha is not considered a god". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_in_CA Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 If BSA means otherwise they should say so. I suspect they *do* mean otherwise, but they are too cowardly to come out and say so given (at present) 70% of their COs are religious organizations. But they do say so. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 But they do say so. You just refuse to acknowledge it. If they use the word with a big G then it's God and not god. Means two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now