Atheist expects Boy Scouts to change, but not soon

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 12/30/02 | JOHN IWASAKI

[RonF]

Darrell Lambert is prepared for a long struggle with the Boy Scouts of America, one decided by public opinion and not by lawsuits.

The 19-year-old Eagle Scout, the subject of national attention after being booted out of the organization last month for being an atheist, doesn't think his recent appeal will reverse his situation. Not soon, anyway.

Darrell Lambert of Olalla, who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being an atheist, has appealed the decision. But he says he won't go to court. "I'd like them to realize it is the moral thing to do."

"I think eventually the Boy Scouts will change," the Olalla teen said yesterday. "It'll just take longer than I like."

Lambert, who earned 37 merit badges in 10 years and assisted in leading a Port Orchard troop, sent his appeal last week to the Scouts' Western Region office in Tempe, Ariz. His letter started a process that likely could take months to resolve.

...

"Legally, (the Scouts) have a right to discriminate," Lambert said at a presentation on the issue yesterday. "Morally, they don't. That's what I'm fighting. They can't teach good citizenship and practice bad citizenship."

[Britton J Wingfield]

Spiral Scouts says it is for pagans. Atheists and agnostics are not pagan any more than they are christian. In fact, pagans and christians have more in common with each other than either does with agnostics or atheists.

[Britton J Wingfield]

BSA will indeed accept pagans, and any other group aknowledging some sort of diety. Hindus, Muslims, whatever.

I can't imagine an atheist wanting to join Spiral Scouts, given their apparent emphasis on metaphysical schtick.

[BMCDA]

The problem however is that there is not one spiritual belief. So of course most people won't consider their own spiritual belief to be superstition but that of other groups.
And this is the case, the more their beliefs differ from that of others. So Christian may not think of other Christian denominations or of Judaism as superstition, but with Islam it's already a little bit different and even more so with Buddism and New Age religions.

So in a way that gives the impression that in the end all religions are equal, at least as a tool to raise and educate children. And this is a view I find very atypical of religious organizations or those affiliated with religion.

[jwalsh07]

I'm agnostic and I have morals. I do what makes me happy. It makes me happy to help others, keep myself physically fit, earn my living and have others like me. If I lie, cheat and steal, I wouldn't like myself and others wouldn't like me, either - it would cause me to be unhappy.

But how about the guy that lies, cheats and steals and the rest of the time sits in front of the TV set gourging himself on Twinkies? If he considers those to be moral things because it furthers his happiness, who is to say he's wrong?

In other words you like coffee and he likes tea. If there is no basis for morality then morals are what men decide they are.

[Terriergal]

whatever.

[Terriergal]

Are there very many atheists who don't believe in evolution?

That's what I was trying to say. Had a mental speed bump I just couldn't get over tonight LOL

[Terriergal]

Oh, and walking under a ladder or seing a black cat requires a belief in a higher power. I mean what else could be able to cause the bad luck?

I assume you mean that "walking under a ladder or seeing a black cat and believing it will bring bad luck requires a belief in a higher power"

Actually yes, when you think of it. To believe *that,* you must believe that there is something controlling/directing events in response to your or other creatures' actions that is bigger than you. Otherwise something as innocuous as a black cat crossing your path, or walking under a ladder would be meaningless as concerns superstition.

[BMCDA]

If he considers those to be moral things because it furthers his happiness, who is to say he's wrong?

How's it with feedback from others?

[Terriergal]

Or am I agreeing with you?

[jwalsh07]

How's it with feedback from others?

Say what?

[Terriergal]

IF you don't believe morals come from God, then you believe morals come from YOU, or from society.

That doesn't logically follow. An atheist can believe that they're objective and exist outside people, society, or even deities

Based on....?

Whether there is a God or not, murder is still wrong. Rape is still wrong

Why? Animals routinely harass and kill each other (even within species) and it is not considered 'wrong' for them to do so. Disturbing to us, perhaps, but not very much to them.

Rules against murder have existed in all civilized societies since before the time of Christianity

So? So has God, who has created humans after his image (having many of his attributes) whether or not they believe in him.

If Jesus came back to Earth today and told us that murder and rape were okay, that would not make them morally acceptable--at least to an atheist.

But this is a moot conjecture because if 'jesus' came back and said that, it would by definition NOT be Jesus.

[Terriergal]

In other words you like coffee and he likes tea. If there is no basis for morality then morals are what men decide they are.

No man is a true relativist, n'est-ce pas?

[Terriergal]

Morality doesn't require feedback from others. Wrong is still wrong even if no one sees, isn't it?

[jwalsh07]

Sorry I don't speak French. I don't even like the French.

As for youyr declaration that no man is a true relativist I offer you William Jefferson Clinton. Not a moral absolute to be found.

[BMCDA]

Yepp, that's what I wanted to say.

[BMCDA]

And I didn't say that. I think we all know how people react if someone steals from them and that's why thieves don't want any observers. Not because they think it isn't wrong if no one sees them but because they know it's wrong and they want to avoid the feedback from the aggrieved party.

[xm177e2]

Based on....?

The best proof that something exists is that it exists.

Why? Animals routinely harass and kill each other (even within species) and it is not considered 'wrong' for them to do so. Disturbing to us, perhaps, but not very much to them.

Humans are not animals, we are sentient beings, as such, we can be expected to follow a moral code.

But this is a moot conjecture because if 'jesus' came back and said that, it would by definition NOT be Jesus.

You're putting limits on the powers of God??? After everything he did for you? I mean, he created you in his image and all.

[Terriergal]

Then it's wrong whether or not they get feedback.

[Diverdogz]

But how about the guy that lies, cheats and steals and the rest of the time sits in front of the TV set gourging himself on Twinkies? If he considers those to be moral things because it furthers his happiness, who is to say he's wrong? In other words you like coffee and he likes tea. If there is no basis for morality then morals are what men decide they are.

I'd say he is a lazy, good-for-nothing idiot. He would be isolated, shamed, ostricized, ridiculed and most likely impoverished.

He would be the atheist/agnostic equivelent to a believer who is guided by his religious text to morally justify bigotry, slavery and all manner of hate and discontent. Yes, think about the vast array of "moral" behaviours derived from the world's religious texts.

[Consort]

Good people are stupid?

Jimmy Carter comes to mind. A good person but not a smart President and not a smart commentator on the presidency. And, many people think he was used as a political pawn when he received the Nobel Prize.