Atheist expects Boy Scouts to change, but not soon

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

[jwalsh07]

That's because you're conflating two issues. Try this. Is it moral for the government to tell you who to associate with?

[BMCDA]

I think this has already been explained to you several times but you seem to forget it regularly. So why don't you do us a favor and take your medication?

[f.Christian]

Isn't that so soviet of you...gulagmasters!

[f.Christian]

What happened to America...

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---

the post-modern GULAG/SATAN age

[BMCDA]

No, this has nothing to do with any government but with consistency. I think it's not very consistent for people to rail against moral relativism and at the same time defend the practice to allow every religious faith into the organization (no matter how wacked out they appear to be).

And defending their right to do so is quite a different thing than defending the practice.

[BMCDA]

f.Christian, you are one really sick puppy!

[f.Christian]

Ok dr gulag...what would stalin/darwin do to sick puppies?

I have a quote from 'sentis'(vaPe retroLL) for you...

be right back!

[jwalsh07]

I'm not quite sure what you're position is to tell you the truth. Could you tell me what exactly your position is relative to the BSA?

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Sorry this took awhile to respond too christmas functions drew my attention. What do I base my life on? What am I required to base it on? My life doesn't need a base outside of myself to be fullfilled. Even if i didn't base my life on rational thought I would still not need a basis to be complete. You seem to need the support of a mythology to help you overcome life's problems I do not. Your life may not be complete without a savior to fill you with hope. I need no false hope I am complete unto myself. Even if every man woman and child on this earth believed in Christ I would have no need. I do not need the consensus of the community.

I search for rational truth because that is where reality resides. Truth is not subjective, truth is not objective, and Truth is not subject to the varied Mythologies of this Planet many of these mythologies being much older than the one you embrace. Truth is absolute. That is why in the search for an absolute truth you must often throw off the weak beliefs of degenrate religion or even the hard won beliefs gained from personal insight. Truth cares for none of that.

God is not truth God is a crutch for those to weak to cut away the dead limbs, shoot the sick dog, or take that first unaided step into the light of reason.


47 posted on 12/22/2002 3:46 PM PST by Sentis


Atheist merit badges/honor---enlightenment!

[lavaroise]

There has to be a line drawn with respect to homosexuality somewhere, just as anyone will draw the line with behaviors, something homosexuals do so crudely and cruely in the first place in their evil organizations. Atheists should be the ones most appalled by homosexuality, a deviant racist secular behavior in the first place, based on sexual preferences and stereotypes, not on behaviors. The inability to figure that man and woman are truly one and thus truly equal when in union is the type of thing an Atheist should seek out.

That said, from a religious point of view, I am sure Christians and boyscouts would be the first ones to help a homosexual in need or sick ... not the thing that homos would do necessarily to other homos or other "traditional" people (homosexuality is a human tradition that has been abolished by Judeo-Christianity, after all) ... After all, it is not the Boy Scout's goal to dump the baby with the bathwater, and that is why true charity and goodness is not synonymous with accepting homosexuals in one's midst as responsible equals, the stance of homosexual leaders as guides is much worse than their behaviors in fact.

[Diverdogz]

I've known several guys in my life (atheists all) who are adulterers and make sure that they won't get caught, enjoy using their time that way, and have no self-loathing about what they're doing (because they don't consider it wrong to begin with). (You know, I wouldn't want to hurt my wife, so as long as I'm sure she never finds out, we're all square...)

Christains would never do such a thing....Just ask Jimmy Swaggert and dozens of Catholic priests. Jimmy's conscience started bothering him AFTER he got caught. LOL. Imagine that, the threat of eternal damnation didn't stop them from yielding to their carnal desires.

But these anecdotes don't really prove anything. The guys in your example are just as wrong as Jimmy and the Ordained pedophiles. Religious and non-religious people make choices, good and bad despite the origin of their morals. I know right from wrong not because of what some religious text tells me, but through reason. Even so, I have my failures just like I'm sure you have yours. My, and your, consequences are earthly. But your faith tells you that you have an additional burden in an afterlife.

[BMCDA]

The BSA is a private organization and as such they can discriminate against whomever they want and they can use whatever criteria to do so (even the length of your nose).
My problem are the people who claim to be against moral relativism (mostly Christians who claim to believe in the One True God) but see nothing wrong with the practice of the BSA to make it a requirement to believe in a higher power where this higher power may be whatever you want. And of course you can't tell me that all people share the same set of morals just because they believe in some ominous higher power or other spiritual stuff.

[RightOnline]

"Because as we all know, it is impossible to believe that the Democrats are proposing unsound economic philosophy, that personal responsibility is a better way to run things than a welfare state/nanny state and that the right to keep and bear arms is something too important to be allowed to be destroyed requires a belief in a very specific deity."

I'm responding to both of you, RonF for your sincere question, and you, Dimensio, for your rather sarcastic rejoinder.

I haven't the foggiest idea where either of you got the notion that I am saying.......or even suggesting........that you must be a Christian to be a Conservative. Re-read what I wrote above. I have said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Conservatism. Nada. Zip.

To answer your question........no, I do not believe that you must be a Christian to be a Conservative. However, in my experience, most Conservatives at least profess Christian beliefs, but I'm not suggesting any prerequisite relationship in any way.

What I WAS addressing..........for the thousandth time on this otherwise terrific forum that I've haunted for over four years............is the way far too many here feel free to attack MY Christian beliefs. Darned shame that there are untold millions (actually, over a billion worldwide) that profess those same beliefs. I see Christianity belittled, attacked, ridiculed, equated with Islam........you name it. I see idiotic references (grossly exaggerated and horrifically inaccurate, by the way) to "the Crusades" and "the Inquisition", as if they're the defining events in Christendom and justify such attacks.

If you don't subscribe to a belief in God.....let alone a belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.........then maybe it sails right over your head what a nerve one strikes when belittling a man's religion. It's akin to walking up to me and calling my wife a whore. I'd kick your ass on the spot and make you rue the day you ever saw me if you did that......and you wouldn't expect any less. Yet, many here haven't the slightest compunction in making fun of He who we know to be the Creator; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We're not a bunch of drooling, superstitious Bible thumpers. Many of us are highly educated, white collar professionals in six-figure-plus jobs who just happen to have come to realize His existence, His power, His love, and His plan for us. I don't push it on anyone, I don't prostelytize (sp?) even if I should........but I'll be damned if I'll take such belittling sitting down. That's also why I've had to ban myself from those stupid "evo" threads, for they're nothing but sorry excuses for Christianity-bashing.

So, yes, it IS a major sore point with me, and I'd appreciate the hell out of it if such people on this forum would back off of snide remarks about my God and His Son.

[jwalsh07]

My problem are the people who claim to be against moral relativism (mostly Christians who claim to believe in the One True God) but see nothing wrong with the practice of the BSA to make it a requirement to believe in a higher power where this higher power may be whatever you want.

You're right, it's your problem. The BSA have every right to set the requirements for entry into their organization and there is nothing immoral about that.

And of course you can't tell me that all people share the same set of morals just because they believe in some ominous higher power or other spiritual stuff.

There are absolute truths regarding morality and then there are subjective morals. The duty not to committ murder is a moral absolute. There are others but they do not include allowing members into your organization who do not agree with your entry requirements.

[Dimensio]

is the way far too many here feel free to attack MY Christian beliefs.

On this website, I try to reserve any actual hostility for those who open up on the offensive. On this particular discussion, my first real 'attack' on God-belief was directed to someone who used it as justification for irrational discrimination against atheists. Even then, I did not target Christianity specifically, as the person to whom I had responded professed only God belief at that point, not Christianity. I don't claim that I'm perfect at holding my tongue, but in this forum I do make an effort not to ridicule someone's beliefs until they become offensive with them first.

In your case, RonF was responding to a rather presumptious statmeent you made. His attack might have been arguably less provoked, but you did come out on the offensive first.

[Dimensio]

The duty not to committ murder is a moral absolute.

Why?

[jwalsh07]

It is a moral absolute if you are not a moral relativist. Either it is wrong to commit murder or it is not. Is it wrong?

And by the way, try to respond to the posts in order, it makes for better debate.

[jwalsh07]

Are you thinking, writing, pre-occupied or are you simply go to take another pass?

[BMCDA]

Once again: my problem is not with the BSA but with those people who rail against Pagans, Wiccans, Muslims, New Agers, but seem to have no problem with the fact that children with these religions and beliefs can join together with their own children.
And how do they know that their children are not exposed or even influenced by these (in their opinion) erroneous beliefs especially if the BSA doesn't make any statement about the superiority of the Christian religion for instance over Wicca or Islam.

[Dimensio]

It is a moral absolute if you are not a moral relativist

This is only if amongst the moral absolutes given down from wherever is a declaration regarding murder. Maybe it seems that I'm arguing semantics, but I think that even if you demonstrate that there exists an absolute system of morals, you need to show that you can derive them without error.

And by the way, try to respond to the posts in order, it makes for better debate.

Sorry. I saw a comment in the 'my comments' page and I replied to that first. Your comment wasn't a response to anything that I'd written, so I didn't see it until later.