Actually mate it's a large part of posting style. At least be honest about that. If it's not, then it shouldn't be hard for you to make posts that don't constantly make personal criticisms and manage to stay on topic will it? So go ahead, prove me wrong. Be nice.

I don't deliberately misrepresent people's opinions, for the simple reason that it achieves nothing and it makes no sense to do it. I've explained why I said what I did about OrP but you wont' let it go, presumably because you think you're achieving something by harping on about it, but you're not. You're just derailing the thread.

You build some very nice trenches for your opinions.

Actually, if that is true, it's even more devastating than anything else you've said so far in the few days I've been around.

A comment right out of Bill O'Reilly idiots guide to attempting to undermine your opponents position by attempting to undermine the opponent themselves and utterly meaningless to the actual debate. You continue to set a bad example of how to behave on a forum.

You use an angry style with me, you attack me personally as much as you engage with my actual beliefs and you mistakenly believe that if I react to your rudeness, I'm digging trenches to hide in because I'm unable to defend my position and you think that this is going to effect a change in my beliefs? ... right...

Post on topic dude and stop being so personal, it's not much to ask is it.

Peace

In this specific instance tame_deuces is reaching. As in, OrP did say "Mightyboosh's view... actively harms [children]." It is not some gigantic leap for mightyboosh to take this as a rather shocking personal comment. I am guessing that what OrP was meaning was that he doesn't believe mightyboosh is actually implementing his view and so it is only harming children in the hypothetical that it was being implemented. But who knows.

Regardless, this is CERTAINLY not the example to stand firm on and leap into a sequence of long soliloquies berating mightyboosh by comparing his arguing on this issue to monkeys flinging poo, whatever the validity of these insults for other examples.

Now there has been a long back and forth of precisely the of poo flinging tame_deuces was supposedly lamenting stemming from a pretty weak example. I suggest tame_deuces takes mightyboosh's advice to drop this.

It was actually a commentary on the nature of the post I quoted from. It was so loaded that any serious answer was impossible.

Thanks.

Okay, it seems we are largely in agreement. I wasn't trying to say that the BSA as an institution doesn't have religious characteristics, I was just saying that many individual troops are largely unaffected by these characteristics.

I view this issue as relevant to RGT as it seems to touch on issues of religious liberty. So for instance, many people believe as part of their religion that homosexuality is sinful and immoral. As a result, they will include as a rule that if you identify as a homosexual and don't intend to remain celibate or have only heterosexual relationships then you cannot join their church. This is definitely discrimination against homosexuals, and in my opinion immoral, but I also think it should be legal--as a general principle I think people should be allowed to create their own rules of membership for private associations. Would you disagree?

Also, what is the law in Canada that prevented BSoC from excluding homosexuals?

I think it is unethical to force children to pledge loyalty to a deity. Thus, if a parent forces their children to do so, then I think they are acting unethically. However, my problem is not with the pledging loyalty to a deity part, but with the forcing part. Thus, if the BSA doesn't force anyone to make this pledge (and I don't think they do), then I don't have a problem (morally anyway) with them making the oath a requirement for membership.

It's obviously hugely different. The BSA is a private organization, whereas politicians in Iran are (obviously) public figures that make coercive laws that apply to everyone. Thus, one is an infringement on liberty in a way that the other is not. If you don't see this difference, you have a serious problem in your analysis of the situation.

I think it wrong to raise kids to be intolerant racists. That doesn't mean that I think it is wrong to raise them to be tolerant egalitarians.

Yeah, I don't believe that is an accurate description of what is going on in the UK, but whatever. But to be totally clear, I think that parents should generally try as much as possible to influence their kids to be virtuous people (and not just the moral virtues). I think this includes trying to persuade your children on what to believe about basic issues. For instance, I would be disappointed if one of my children became a young-earth creationist, not just because I thought they were wrong, but because it would be a sign that I had failed to train them on how to form their beliefs about the world. However, I don't think this is primarily a matter of telling them what they should believe, but rather of training them to be good thinkers.

To expand on this a bit: I think one of the jobs of parents is to act as role models for their children. In the intellectual realm, this means that parents should be open to new ideas, ready to follow the truth even in unpopular directions, curious about the world, intellectually honest, rigorous in their thinking and so on. In my opinion, some "meta-belief systems" are compatible with exhibiting these virtues and others are not. For instance, I don't think young-earth creationism is compatible with being both intellectually honest and rigorous. I am doubtful that the more literal versions of biblical inerrancy are compatible with exhibiting these virtues. I also think that certain versions of postmodernism are explicit rejections of these qualities as being virtuous.

Thus, I think that if you don't try to steer your children away from the "meta-belief systems" listed above (or similar ones) then you are failing in your job as a parent. You are failing to teach or model good thinking for your children.

As for you in particular, as tame_deuces said, I'm not making the claim that you in particular are harming your kids. I don't really know you, I don't know how you parent, what your kids are like or anything. I wouldn't presume to make such a judgement. Also, I never said anything about whether you encourage an interest in meta-beliefs.

I'm not sure if you are serious here, but your ellipses mangle what I meant to say. I wasn't claiming that Mightyboosh's view was what harmed children. Rather, I was claiming that parents remaining neutral towards "meta-belief systems" would harm children.

If this was indeed how Mightyboosh was reading my statement, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that.

That being said, I also think it is close to impossible for parents to actually remain neutral, so yeah you are right that I also don't think Mightyboosh is doing so.

The link in the OP is to an article about a boy who was excluded because he wouldn't agree to an oath that required pledging loyalty to god.

Yes it's different, a bad choice of word on my part which I retract. What I meant was that it's all intended to have the same outcome, that is to help perpetuate a religion.

So you have a subjective view on what kinds of indoctrination are acceptable and which aren't?

As best I can, that's all I'm trying to do too.

Check, check, check, check & check.

I thought that there was an implication and another poster has supported that it could have been taken that way. That being said, I never for a second thought that it was intended maliciously and didn't take it that way. So thanks for the apology but it's really not necessary.

I'm not neutral, I have very strong feelings about a lot of things. When my children ask me about them I'm at pains to say that 'people believe different things'.


As above.

I do my best but as I've said in the 'RE syllabus' thread, I'm their Dad, there's bound to be some influence. It's not deliberate though.

So? The BSA isn't forcing that kid to be a member, so I don't think they are acting unethically simply because they make the oath a requirement. As I said before, I have a problem with forcing children (or anyone else) to pledge loyalty to a deity. But I have no problem with children voluntarily agreeing to do so.

The bolded is false.

No, I have a principled view about what kinds of teachings are acceptable and which are not. My view requires some distinctions which you seem unable or unwilling to make: e.g. between teaching and indoctrination, between teaching immoral attitudes/beliefs and teaching moral attitudes/beliefs, etc. Without these distinctions my view doesn't make sense, so you probably shouldn't try to summarize it without them.

Then my comment wouldn't apply to your case.

Oh I see, no, they're not forcing him to make the pledge, they're discriminating against him because he won't.

It's part of my worldview and my understanding of how religions perpetuate themselves that they also use peer pressure to great effect. That applies here too.

Since you usually give a reason and you haven't in this case, I'm not sure how to respond except to say 'no it's not'. Both examples, of a Scout pledge that requires loyalty to the deity of that culture, and the Iranian Islamic Council's powerful involvement in local politics have no other purpose than to perpetuate the beliefs of the respective religions. All religious ceremony, ritual, rites and cultural impositions have that purpose. They're tools of control.

You've used the word 'teachings' where I've used the word 'indoctrination'. What types of indoctrination do you support?

Tsk, you use the word "indoctrination" where he used the word teaching. Why do you oppose teaching?

And don't complain, it is the exact same logic.

Right, which I think should be legal. I also don't have a big problem with organizations that require their members to accept certain faith statements, although I do think it is a mistake for the Scouts to do so.

If you disagree with me, what would you say to the local churches that are no longer able to require their members to accept their faith statement before joining?

Okay. Don't see how this is relevant to anything.

I didn't expand on my claim because this has already been discussed with you at length. I'm not going to significantly improve on the arguments that have already been presented to you on this issue, so I'm just noting that you are wrong and moving on. For instance, the bolded is a similar example of a false statement that has already been discussed. No need to rehash it.

Yeah, you should answer tame_deuces' question here. You are just ignoring the distinction that I said was crucial to understanding my position.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Canadian legal system, but we have a sort of extrajudicial system called the human rights act. It is an act of parliament (as in any part could theoretically be overturned by a majority vote in parliament) and what it does is set up a Council (to ameliorate) and a Tribunal (to adjudicate) which are effectively a secondary court system. In the act there is an enumerated list of possible discrimination (with no analogous rights acknowledged, unlike the analogous rights that regular courts can determine from the charter) and discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of those enumerated rights. So the main difference here is that this system can deal with interactions between private individuals, opposed to the normal court system dealing with Charter rights (of which homosexual discrimination has been determined to be an analogous right) prevents government discrimination such as overturning gay marriage. There are a range of similar provincial systems and bills. To my knowledge (although I didn't bother googling) this issue has not been taken up for BSoC who currently accept LGBT members but there was a prominent case this summer of the Human Rights Tribunal finding against two Christian B&B owners who refused service to openly gay patrons and cited religious freedom as their defence.


If one is constructing the ideal legal system, there can be sensitivity and exemptions, particularly in conflicts between different rights (like the right to religious freedom in conflict with a right not to open discrimination). So for instance, excluding a gay pastor can be determined acceptable but excluding a gay scout can not. So yes, I would support a legal system that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation that DID apply in the gay scout case but did NOT apply in the gay pastor case. Of course there may be difficulties implementing such a thing consistently and how to deal with things in the middle of these cases etc.

Since I wasn't involved for the previous discussion, and since he is stubbornly maintaining the silly statement, perhaps I will give one more whack at it to see if my way, even if not new, helps him see it differently.

When we say "purpose" there is an implication of intent. If the purpose of my action X is to accomplish Y it is because I am intending Y. And if the ONLY purpose of my action is X, then my only intent for doing X is Y. If X happens to cause Z, but I didn't intend that, then the purpose of my action X was not to cause Z.

Given that, it is more than obvious that people DO indeed have many different purposes beyond simply trying to propagate belief in their religion. People may think there is value to living a spiritual life that is close to god and in concordance with god's rules. They may want scouts to do their duty to god because their purpose is NOT just the propagation of this belief, but they believe this will make them better. In fact, the purpose of many religious actions are quite noble.

Now you can claim that the EFFECT of such statements is the propagation of their religion. I wouldn't say it is the only effect, but in aggregate sure that is one effect. However, unless this is the ONLY intended consequence, that is not the purpose.

I think what is going on here is that you are sort of borrowing from cultural memetics and saying the "purpose" of any meme is its own propagation. As in, you have a tautology, but are only noting it in the religious case. So at best, if I give you all the benefit of the doubt, you are using a word in a nonstandard and confusing way and doing it inconsistently.

I thought the bolded was precisely the view that mightyboosh was giving...so I don't understand the distinction you make in your first paragraph. No matter, I am not in any way vested in that argument. My point was simply that Mightyboosh's misinterpretation was NOT entirely unjustified and easy to see how he could think you were implying that he was actively harming his children. I think he missed the conditional "if you did what you say, even though I think you aren't doing that, then you would be actively harming your children". Perhaps I misinterpret as well and it doesn't matter. The point was that this particular example did NOT justify the long tirade of poo flinging accusations launched by tame_deuces. Perhaps other examples do justify it, of course.

I think we have the same understanding of what 'purpose' means.

*Quotes are from Signaling, Solidarity, and the Sacred: The Evolution of Religious Behavior

Let me ask you a question then. If we accept that ritual, in which I'm include pledging loyalty to a deity as an example, arose because of the perceived benefits (*Realized benefits include improved health, survivorship, economic opportunities, sense of community, psychological well-being, assistance during crises, mating opportunities, and fertility), and those rituals could easily be Secular and unrelated to religion at all, then why are there so many religious rituals?

I believe it's because of the quote below:

Religions, like any organisation interested in their own survival, developed rituals as a means by which to ensure that survival, through control of behaviour intended to elicit certain response behaviours (continued belief).

So, no matter what the actual intent of the organisation, of the Scout leader for a specific troupe or the Scouts themselves is, I believe the origin of the type of behaviour that results in people making pledges to do their duty to God to be nothing more than successful Christian Branding/ritualisation and whatever the target demographic believe they're doing it for, that only has one purpose ultimately.

What do you think the origins of that behaviour are?

Communism (or better said Leninism) had tons of rituals and oaths. The were majorly anti-religious. So much so that we added "under God" in our pleadge of Aligence.

Sure deffinatly these things can be used to propigate a cause but pleadges SUCK at evangelism. I have never been to a rally where all they said were the different creeds... in fact, I dont think I've ever heard them used during evangelical rallies.

But they do very well in creating choheision and reinforcing key ideas. If anything, pleadges are exclusionary because it creates an identity of the group together (by saying this is who we are, what we belive what our goals are) that is seperate from everything else.

So, paradoxicaly, it seems the role of ritual is to include or exclude depending on what the desired effect is.

Yes, so it's entirely possible, and even likely, that a pledge of loyalty to a deity in the Scout's Oath is intended to further the interests of Christianity even if Baden Powell didn't realise that he was simply perpetuating that behaviour when he originally included it because a sense of duty and recognition of our obligation to god had been so firmly inculcated into his thinking.

I think you may be underestimating how effective they are though. Constant references to a god in our culture is bound to have a reinforcing influence.

I really am not. Ive been to a bagillion prayer rallies and revivals. Not one time did we recite any creed or oath. The closest thing to any of these were speakers at the end, after people had come forward wanting to be converted, who would lead them in a "sinner's prayer" not because they need some oath but because not everyone who responds to the gospel feels like they know how or what to pray. I know this because Im Evangelical Baptist. If anyone knows what reels them in, it's us. lol

Music, theatrics, and dynamic speakers/preachers is what really stokes the fire of the Holy Spirt in people. Not stuffy old pleadges. They have a great ability to drive, solidify and retain but they attract newbies like flys to bleach.

You're so obsessed about one facit you totaly miss the rest of the forest:

"Ha, look it's a mushroom! This must be a mushroom patch!"
"Nope its a forest, there are tons of trees everywhere"
"But mushrooms grow on trees"
"ok"
"So it must be a mushroom patch!"
"No, it's a forest that has mushrooms growing"
"Ha! so you admit mushrooms are growing here. So where do mushrooms grow?"
"... but this is a forest"

I don't disagree but I'm not talking about what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about 'stoking the fires', it's far more insidious and subtle than that sort of thing. We live in a culture pervaded by religion and constant references to those religions. Overall the effect is to constantly reinforce the message that there is a god. By the time people 'make up their minds' about religions, if they're spiritually inclined they've already been 'pre-qualified' as the marketers like to call it, by constant and relentless reference to religion and god since they were young children.

I'm constantly being told on this forum that I'm posting to a bunch of Theists a cut above average, who've carefully thought through their decisions and don't need to be insulted by the suggestion that they're susceptible to suggestion ... but the simple fact is that if you subscribe to one particular belief system then you've been sold a line and as Richard Dawkins agrees, if you'd been born somewhere else, or in a different time, you'd most likely believe something entirely different.

The only people who have a valid counter to that are the ones that believe in a higher power but don't subscribe to the version of that higher power as provided by one or other of the organised religions.

If it was mearly time/place that determined what you became spiritualy then missionaries wouldnt exist, or at least wouldnt be effective, but that simply isnt the case.

If your thesis was true, the whyy is there a Mormon community here, in the Central Caucases, half a world away from Utah, in the 2nd/3rd oldest Xian nation that has a population that is 96.1% Georgian Orthodox?

Religions swap converts all the time. Religion is by no means set in stone, its very much a choice.

And you know what, I do take offen to you saying that Ive been sold a like. Like Ive been conned and duped into the faith I have. Its INCREADABLY condesending as if you have somehow you have all the knowledge of heaven, earth and everything inbetween. And Im some poor lost child who ignorantly swallowed everything his parents taught him without asking any questions. But you know nothing more than I do about this stuff empericaly.