Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I didn't read anything you said as a justification for BSA bigotry--I'm sorry that you took it that way. I was just offering a reason why there may have been no gay scouts in your troop "that you know of".

(Fr Andrew): It's not necessary to ask those things of a prospective Scout. By reciting the Scout Oath to do his duty to God and Country, and to be "morally straight", the scout is saying that he's not gay and that he believes in God.


(Fr Andrew): I don't know any. I was hoping that your father may have told you.

penumbra

Maybe a little off topic, but did you know that the Boy Scouts of America National Council in Irving Texas reported just over $500 million in net assets (above all liabilities) at the end of 2000? And that doesn't include the assets of sub-organizations, local chapters, foundations, etc. Revenue to the council that year was over $200 million.

BSA would seem to be a pretty well-to-do organization, financially - anybody know what kind of salary the top folks draw down?

GunnerJ

Fair enough Fr. Andrews, sorry for being a tad confrontational. About "agnostic Christians," my dad has never elaborated on his comment that he "considers [him]self an agnostic, but also believes in Christianity." I think his point might have been that people can believe in god without claiming to know for certain if god exists.

beejay

What is your duty to something that doesn't exist?

"Straight" doesn't mean heterosexual, in the scout oath. If a gay doesn't think what he is doing is immoral, can't he say that he is "morally straight"?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I think the BSA operates under the assumption that God exists.

(Fr Andrew): No...it signifies adherance to a particular philosophy and a standard of behavior endorsed by the BSA, which is violated by (at least) homosexuality and non-belief.

(Fr Andrew): Perhaps, but you'd be hard put finding a pubescent homosexual who doesn't consider his/her thoughts and/or actions immoral.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Thanks. Not a problem.

(Fr Andrew): I'll have to think on that.

Toto

On agnostic Christians, a lot of people from my generation and older thought that God was a necessary fiction to keep order in society. Your father probably thought that god did not exist, but Christian morals were good.

Kevin Dorner

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

(This is directly from a dictionary.)

In that light many Christians and many other religious people are agnostic as they do not claim that there is "proof" or definite knowledge now or in the future of the existence of god(s), and to the effect do not pursue such proofs, ie crow over phony ossuaries, start "ministries" to find evidence of the earth being six thousand years old, think that Jesus will return Oh Any Old Day Now to show the world, etc.

Ain't that the definition of "faith" to acknowledge lack of proof, and not need proof or seek it?

(What does that do to the "faith" of those who claim evidence, or can't live without it?)

Ronin

Last May I emailed the local chapter of the BSA and expressed an interest in their position regarding the acceptance of secular humanists and any possible replacement of the phrase "duty to God" with "duty to goodness".

I laid all my cards on the table and explained the tenets of humanism (lacking supernaturalism), my atheism and background and the citizenship accolades of my son.

I've attached the response I received.


I will post my response at a later time.

Toto

Kevin Dorner - this issue was just hashed out on another forum, forgive me if I do not remember if you were a part of it.

"Agnostic" is a term that was coined to describe a person who does not believe in God because there is insufficient evidence - either insufficient evidence as things stand now, or because the question is unknowable. It essentially refers to what we describe here as a "weak atheist." The term is typically used for people who have not taken a stand on an issue because there is no evidence - I can be agnostic on the question of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

A person who believes in spite of a lack of evidence is properly known as a "fideist."

I am completely mystified as to why people who do not claim that there is any evidence of God, but still believe in God, want to appropriate the term "agnostic." They are not agnostic. They have decided to believe, for whatever reason, so they are "believers". An agnostic is not a believer.

This can only be a sign of the fact that so many people who claim to believe are really very shakey in their so-called faith and know that they can never justify it.

It's like Christians saying that Christianity is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - which, as far as I can tell, is just a dishonest marketing device, at attempt to get past the defenses of people who know that religion is a source of bad things.

That's all for my rant, and let's get back on topic.