Atheist dad struggling with cub scouts

[moosetracker]

Hey TT if that is your desire.. Wish you the best, and hope the unit encourages your dreams..

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, this thread started on 2/23/2010 and the first time I responded at all was after perdidochas asked KC9DDI this question, "Do you suggest we change the Scout Oath when we allow atheists in?" to which KC9DDI responded: "Sure".

 

That was when I wrote to say that I am with KC9DDI on that single word response. There was no explanation except that I agreed that I would support changing the oath.

 

But previously jrush had stated his belief that, "atheists should be barred because atheists hold that NO religion is valid."

And KC9 responded that he thought jrush was taking some liberties with the term 'atheist'. He also wrote, "I'd rather just welcome our atheist friends into the program, rather than asking them to re-define their philosophy to fit into some loop hole or work-around that we've tried to devise."

 

I agree with that as well.

 

It was not until AFTER, that you and KC9DDI had your extended exchange leading up to statements about the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't part of that exchange unless you can find something that I've been unable to find in this thread. The first time I responded to anything about the Pledge was when I posted about its history.

 

And then YOU wrote about my logic, "So, why is the fact that "under God" being recently added to the Pledge have anything to do with your logic that "duty to God" needs to be wiped out of our Oath in order to accept Atheists in.."

 

What logic? I have not made any such arguments. Show me where they are. I have NEVER written that because of something in the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, the 'duty to God' words "need to be wiped out in order to accept Atheists in.." I did not connect these issues. YOU did.

 

What I did write was that I'm OK with removing the 'duty to God' words. If BSA considered that mandatory in order to allow atheists in then I support that. I'd like to see it happen. I don't necessarily see this as required for atheists to be allowed in but I'm OK with removing the words, that's all. YOU are misrepresenting what I have written.

 

But here's the one that I really can't quite place: "In that last post, you just said that you agreed with my idea that like the Pledge it should just respect the wishes of the atheist to stay silent at the "God" section.. And that you never made a reference that you wanted it removed.."

 

What last post are you talking about? I can't find a single post where I stated agreement with you about your exchange with KC9DDI, or that I claimed that I never made a reference that I wanted it removed. Actually in my last post I claimed that I DO support its removal.

Is it time for me to write, "HUH?" yet?

 

I stated what I think on this. Here it is again:

"I do understand how a person might find the idea that they cannot be the "best kind of citizen" if they don't have a certain religious belief to be prejudicial. It IS."

and

"FWIW, I'm not an atheist and I support removal of the 'God' reference from both oath and pledge. I consider religious faith to be a personal matter and I object to having it shoved in my face by other people (although I tolerate it dozens of times every day) and as a result I find that kind of 'in your face' projection of what ought to be personal to be rude, perhaps offensive. I also realize that I'm in a minority opinion so I just shrug and get on with life."

 

I've been fairly consistent about these things. I do support the idea that 'duty to God' be removed from the oath. I'd be OK with it. I don't think I've ever written that removal of 'duty to God' is necessary to allow atheists in but if others felt that way I'd support it. If I wanted to make a comparison I'd make it to the 'gay' issue rather than to the Pledge of Allegiance. In both cases (G&G) BSA's attempt to exclude does nothing more than put people 'in the closet' as a matter of either conscience or nature. They're 'here' anyway, you just don't know who 'they' are. They're unknown, unwelcome, and unequal..but they're here. Congratulations, BSA, on an apocalyptically stupid and divisive policy.

[moosetracker]

packsaddles now second to last post..

 

 

Moosetracker, I'm not making that connection. YOU made that connection. "I still think the Oath would be best and easiest to follow the path that the Pledge of Allegence has."

If you can find a place where I actually made the logical argument that you just attributed to me, I'd like to read it. I merely would not object to having 'duty to God' removed from the oath.

 

I do understand how a person might find the idea that they cannot be the "best kind of citizen" if they don't have a certain religious belief to be prejudicial. It IS.

 

FWIW, I'm not an atheist and I support removal of the 'God' reference from both oath and pledge. I consider religious faith to be a personal matter and I object to having it shoved in my face by other people (although I tolerate it dozens of times every day) and as a result I find that kind of 'in your face' projection of what ought to be personal to be rude, perhaps offensive. I also realize that I'm in a minority opinion so I just shrug and get on with life.

 

 

So do you support removing the words about God, or leaving them in and just accepting the fact atheists will be silent on that phrase, but saying the rest of the Oath..?

 

Maybe the comment about the pledge adding God was just a odd unrelated comment, coming in at an odd time, and I was trying to make it logically fit into the conversation at hand.. IE.. You are in support with KC9.. IE.. You are trying to add to the conversation currently at hand about if removal of God in the oath is neccessary, and that atheists are attempting to remove God from anything considered public.. What does the reference by you of when "God" was added to the pledge have to do with supporting KC9 that the Oath should remove the phrase "God"..

 

So I was wrong.. I will amend my comment to say this... "Yes Packsaddle, I know the words "God" was recently added to the Pledge, but since it doesn't relate to the issue at hand, why bring it up??"..

 

[Tampa Turtle]

I should read the subject line first.

 

"Atheist dad struggling with cub scouts"--I find holding them with my left arm and using a brick to the head with the right a couple of times usually quiets them down. If you are left handed you may wish to do the opposite. I am not sure why the Atheism is an issue--I pray to God to help me with the rope but it is optional.

 

Those Tiger cubs are squirmy but small.

[packsaddle]

The world was just fine 'before' the words "under God" were added to the Pledge, as well as after. If we removed those words from the Pledge, what would be the harm to anyone? If we removed the 'duty to God' part of the oath would it really cause harm? I don't see the harm.

 

If I wanted to make a contemporary connection between the Pledge of Allegiance and the 'duty to God' issue, it would be to compare the political fears of the 1950s with regard to those "Godless communists" to the phobias some of us still have about atheists in scouting. It's all so unnecessary.

 

What I DO see is that there are good people out there who would make a positive contribution to the boys and to scouting if they weren't excluded by the membership policy. And I DO see the harm in that.

 

In my case, either way it doesn't affect me personally. I just tend to pull for the 'underdog' and this translates to defending minorities if they're being treated wrongly. I side with the boy who's being bullied, I try to help the struggling student, I am a sucker for little kids or people who need clothes or food, and I react defensively if I see people being treated unfairly because of something they are or something they think. And IF that is the result of a couple of words in some oath or pledge, I'm ok with removing those words.

 

I happen to think that it goes deeper than that. Like I wrote before, I wish BSA (and scouters) weren't so obsessed with sex and religion.

 

Edit: TT, I used to employ lots of ice cream...just before their parents arrived...diabolical.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Tampa Turtle]

Pack,

 

Ah yes, a Scout is Kind. Ice Cream is better than Bricks.

[jonathanrbaker]

"I happen to think that it goes deeper than that. Like I wrote before, I wish BSA (and scouters) weren't so obsessed with sex and religion. "

 

And yet the years that a young man is in the Scouting program are crucial years in which he is forming his beliefs/attitudes/opinions on these subjects. Subjects which are already clouded by the "our-way-or-you-are-an-idiot/prude/bigot" society we live in.

[moosetracker]

Well normally I also root for the underdog.. Thereby I will support gays being allowed into BSA, and Atheists being allowed into BSA... But as Fishman stated the words of God being in things doesn't bother him, he is use to it.. No biggie.. Most Atheists are accepting of others beliefs as long as they are treated respectfully for theirs..

 

Catering to the militant Athiest, to do away with "God" so that they can have their way is like rooting for the school Bully..

 

I would equally be against a church who suddenly found out they had a atheist for a next door neighbor, and so erected a huge glowing cross to shine into his bedroom window at night as it loudly played hymns over a magaphone system..

 

No one put God in the pledge to rankle the Atheist..

No one put God on money to spit on the Atheist..

No one put the 10 commandments statue outside a supreme court, just to stick it to the Atheist..

 

Now maybe the communists might want to take us to court about the Pledge as it was designed to stick it to them, and they might want to take issue with being called Godless.. But, the atheists have nothing to complian about..

 

Them being upset about the use of "God" because it might confuse their children, would be the same as you or I being upset that our child might witness some muslim in thier daily prayers, or for me if I were to see a Catholic do the sign of the cross, or kneel at the alter, or if my child saw the jewish menorah..

 

We all are respectful of the differences of each others religions. I can be respectful of a Atheists choice not to participate in anything. But, I can not be respectful of their need to destroy anybody elses joy of celebrating their beliefs in what has become traditional ways for them.

 

Reminds me of the time, my family & I went to some sort of entertainment at our local playhouse.. Didn't realize it but they were celebrating First night of Chanukkah there.. Wasn't mentioned in the advertising.. So about 45 minutes we were celebrating a Jewish holiday.. Kindof interesting, caught me off guard.. But, I did not feel the need to get up walk out and protest the theater for doing a religious ceremony in a public theater.. (I wonder if there were any militant atheists there who did??)

 

The militant athiest need to deal with the differences of humans the same as the rest of us, not insist that everyone bends to their will.

[SeattlePioneer]

Lots of atheists and agnostics fit into Scouting right now.

 

Many of the rest will NEVER be satisfied with any effort to accommodate them that doesn't exclude religion ffrom Scouting altogether.

 

Of course, they are always talking about some slight reasonable accommodation, but it wont stop there. It never does.

 

The immediate goal of the secular/atheist movement is to exclude religion from the public square and confine it as narrowly as possible to home and church.

 

At that point they will start going after religion in the home and church, just as was done in the French revolution, USSR, Maoist China, Vietnam and so on.

 

I see Scouting as reasonably accepting of those who don't accept one of Scouting basic principles and values. I see no reason to make further compromises which will not satisfy, but just embolden and empower that opposition.