Maybe try not starting your threads with lines like this then:

You have it backwards. People are saying what they are doing is, legally, allowable because it IS, at least in part, a religious institution. As in, you are pretending that it is not a religious institution (or, at least, an institution with an explicit religious component) and acting as if their discrimination is in some sense special when it is not, it is preciously the kind of dsicrimination we expect and explicitly allow for from religious institutions.

Yep you got me there, I withdraw that remark.

No... if you want start a thread on that topic I'll be happy to join you in conversation there. It's too far away from this thread's topic to continue here.

Good grief, am I speaking Swahili or something? Yes, the wording of the pledge is an example of how religion is urged on children, does that make the Scouts a Faith based organisation who's sole purpose is to religiously indoctrinate children?

No.....

So I'll start threads with lines like that, on the continued assumption that people won't willfully misinterpret them in futile attempts to make me look like I'm contradicting myself, I assure you that I'm not.

On this topic of teaching/indoctrinating children: I think Mightyboosh is making a mistake to emphasize so much the process and not the content. As in, in a couple threads he wants to make a sharp distinction between the process of the teaching that goes between teaching various different things when I don't think the process is nearly as sharp as he suggests. Perhaps he is better at inculcating free thinking and critical thought among his kids than some religious people are, but broadly encouraging this (itself a worldview) is not dependent on whether one is or is not religious.

In other words, i do not fault the religious person for teaching their kid what they believe to be true. They SHOULD do that. I fault them for the fact that they believe things that are not true. If you genuinely believe that whether your or other people's children are going to spend an eternity in hell unless they believe in god, you would be a moral monster NOT to try and encourage this belief in them. So I have few problems with the process, merely the content.

The problem that mightyboosh runs into is that when he tries to complain about the process, he immediately opens himself up for criticism on whether he is being entirely consistent where he can justify his sweeping criticisms of how religions teach while simultaneously staying squeaky clean himself. I doubt he can do that. But even if he can, it is shifting the debate away from the major issue: the content of the beliefs.

I think people should be allowed to form whatever groups they like, provided the state isnt funding them and providing they arent breaking laws. Unfortunately, bigots will creat KKKK (the last K being for kids). The difficult part of freedom is allowing people to do things you passionately disagree with.

Nah, I stand by my statement. Some troops are non-religious. Yes, there is a reference to God in the oath. However, for some troops (such as mine), this was of no more significance than using money that said "In God We Trust." If any of the scout leaders cared about religion, they showed no evidence of it during meetings or trips. We didn't pray, sing songs, tell stories about Jesus or other religious figures, or do any of the other activities typically associated with religion. As close as we got was a chapel that was held at the summer camp, which was pretty completely ecumenical.

So yeah, while some scout troops are more explicitly religious (mostly the Mormon ones), many are not. If you want to say that the BSA is tightly connected with religious groups and partially controlled by them, I'll agree with you. But, nonetheless, that doesn't describe all individual troops.

What in your view was the failing in the law?

Yeah, this is really minor as an issue. I think we are just talking at different levels. You want to say that the BSA is a semi-religious organization, but I am just talking about individual troops.

Sure. And my troop was entirely secular as well with the exception of a few readings of the oath for new members (the fact that we held meeting in the basement of a church didn't affect this). So in no sense was I trying to imply that every individual troop was religious. But if we are going to talk about the institution as a whole, with its larger governing structure which extends considerably beyond just the troupe level, there is - completely explicitly - a distinct religious element to things like the "purpose" of that institution. Sufficiently distinct so as to ban members based on their religious views, even if sporadically enforced.

Well this is a political view opposed to a religious one, so not really the thread, but I would support legislation that enumerates explicit protections for a range of minorities, including but not limited to homosexuals. In canada we have a Human Rights Council and Tribunal to adjudicate discrimination cases and discrimination against homosexuals (in private institutions, not just public ones) can be dealt with here. So for instance, in Canada the BSoC could not exclude homosexuals under our law while in the US the correct interpretation of current law, in my view, is that they are allowed (although it was a 5/4 decision in a partisan 5/4 court so draw your own conclusions).

That was me, and it was a temple. And you still are twisting what I said to fit your view of religion, despite me telling you that you were wrong. Allow me to explain.

You believe X is true. You teach X to your kids. You don't want to indoctrinate, so you encourage your kids to question X and go explore online/outside for themselves better understand if X is true. Do you expect your kids to end up disbelieving in X? Of course not -- to you, X is the truth, so how can any questioning or exploration lead to anything but X? Despite your expectations, you are still allowing your kids to move away from X; just because you expect them to accept X eventually doesn't mean you are holding them to it.

It is not true that exploration and questioning of X, by either you or your children, will never lead to anything but X. I have changed my mind on all sorts of things because of precisely this process. The only problem comes in when questioning of X is supressed and one is held to it. Since you don't think mighty boost is holding his children to X then this seems fine.

But if you hold that X is the truth, then your expectation is that one finds X to be true even when questioning it or exploring other options. After all, questions/exploration should lead to the truth, and X is the truth.

What this all means is that my rabbi was not being disingenuous when he told me to question and doubt Judaism just because he expected I would still believe in it after that questioning and doubting.

Undoubtably. And I believe the process of exploration and questioning, for me and my children, is most likely to result in believing as I do. Of course what we might both mean by questioning/exploring may be very different. But yes I agree neither I nor your rabbi is being disingenuous (or at least not necessarily, he still may be I don't know). As in, I don't say "go and question and explore" just so I can seem all objective when knowing it will just lead to the answer I "want" them to have. I say it because I genuinely want them to question and explore because that process is, in and of itself, valuable. Presumably your rabbi feels the same. I guess I have forgotten if we are disagreeing about something, can you remind me

Incidentally, I have heard before that the jewish tradition is more open to open doubting than some branches of christianity where, for instance, the mere act of questioning would be considered turning away from Christ.

Ofcourse you are shocked, because you don't read posts. Instead you argue against insultingly stupid arguments that you invent and put in the mouths of your perceived "enemies". I suggest you go to the zoo and fling poo at a chimp. This way you'll be ensured the level of debate you aspire too. When over few weeks you repeatedly (as in many hundred times) reduce debate to arguments as to why your opponent said what you claim he said, and not what he claims he said... well, I don't think the problem is everybody else.

Do you know the meaning of the world tolerance? It means "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own". When you equivocate the principle of "allowing private organizations to discriminate" with "then there can be no discrimination that makes you feel uncomfortable", you are definitely displaying intolerance.

As for your own implied argument: If discomfort is suitable grounds for disallowing something, you end up arguing that the only moral thing is "the least insulting common denominator". So let's paint all the houses light green and force everyone to wear plaid.

'Nuff said.

This analogy fails at the bolded step because that's not what's happening. I would write it like this:

I believe X is true. However, there also exist Y, Z & B alternatives so I teach my kids about X,Y,Z & B . (I don't teach it 'to' them, that would be different)

Also, what Uke_master said.

Actually I was shocked that OrP thinks I'm actively harming my children. Also, that he thinks that I'm not encouraging an interest in meta beliefs which is factually incorrect.

And you conveniently failed to adress - for the umpteenth time - the charge that you blatantly misrepresent what people tell you just to make it fit your arguement.

OrP never said that he thinks you are actively harming your children. Stop lying.

Dude, you're going too far.

wtf? When have I done that? When have I even been accused of that?

Can't you just discuss the thread topic?

No, I am not going to far. Nowhere in that post does OrP state that he thinks you are actively harming your children.

Learn to read.

.

lol when I saw that you'd used the word 'lying' I thought that the next post you made might be an opportunity for a weaselly get out and a pointless insult. At no point in that sentence did I say that you used a weaselly get out and pointless insult though.

Learn to read between the lines.

Now, continue this in PM please and stop derailing the thread. If you think I've impugned OrP by all means complain about me to the mods but for now, stay on topic or stop posting on my thread.

No. When you are incapable of properly presenting the views of others, this is not derailing. It is addressing your own claims. You made the bed, now you're lying in it. You can't misquote someone, and then claim "derail" when it is pointed out.

OrP did not at any point in that post accuse you of mistreating your children. Your claim in that regard is an extremely sorry excuse for an argument.

The Scouts receive public dollars in the US so no they shouldn't be able to discriminate against atheists or homosexuals like they do. If it was privately funded i would have no problem with them being discriminatory. Well... legal wise.

I'm not using it as an argument, nor did I 'misquote' anyone because I didn't quote OrP until you started in on me, I simply expressed my shock at what I interpreted as a condemnation of my approach to raising my children. You on the other hand are attempting to use it as a blunt instrument with which to beat me into submission. You seem to subscribe to the Bill O'Reilly school of debate, undermine the opponent in order to discredit their viewpoint. Next you'll be telling me I'm not patriotic.

Good luck with that. I'll happily state as fact that it has zero chance of succeeding. Just keep insulting me until you have to put me on your ignore list. Please. Or be civil and stay on topic in which case I'm happy to converse with you.

When you misrepresent what others state, pointing it out is not "undermining your person". Any loss of face is on you, not me.

Ignore all you want, I debate people regardless of list status.