Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to SINCE WHEN DID IT BECOME MORE 'MORALLY STRAIGHT' TO LIE?
BSA buidelines
sort of like a catechism isn't it?
once made never changed?
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 19, 2006 at 1:15 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - and we cannot forget the claims of getting exceptional marks
in science classes throughout all of school.
But we are "diverting attention" from the real issue here. I read the questions and answers concerning the BSA and I see a convoluted means of arriving at a conclusion. The equation attempted is that not believing in God somehow makes a person not able to exemplify all that is right. If our recent experiences with those who do believe in God is any indication, there is nothing to base this equation on. I'd be more concerned about the believers exemplifying all that is right. And no one mentioned that the original guidelines were written in when? 1910? . . maybe it's time for a change.
posted by
gomedome
on June 18, 2006 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I remember that post, and he never took my advice about trying to not look like a fool.
I had forgotten just how poorly thought out every single sentence in that post was. There was no science, no logic and no thinking at all in what was written there.
That post alone debunks most of his lies. There ain't no way the person who wrote that went to Harvard or is a member of MENSA.
posted by
kooka_lives
on June 18, 2006 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 -I once had a gay person put it all in perspective with on line
"If being gay is a choice, who in their right mind would choose it?" Like who would consciously choose a lifetime of ostracism and discrimination at the hands of the majority of society if they had any other option? Yet, we still see religious knuckleheads regurgitating this nonsense.
posted by
gomedome
on June 18, 2006 at 7:25 PM
| link to this | reply
I was good friends with an atheist homosexual when I was in business school
Unfortunately, we lost contact shortly after school, so I can't help you with that view.
The problem is that certain people don't want to except that homosexuality is a natural occurance. They want to continue to believe that it is a "choice", so they can be right, and feel good about the hatred they spew.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on June 18, 2006 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - This is a link to my favourite blog of all time
HERE . . . and considering the claims made afterwards, it is even more astounding today than when it was first posted. The trick is to see if you can read more than 3 lines without bursting out laughing. Then you will have the answer to the question you have asked earlier in these comments. Can this individual construct a thought of their own? I'd have to say yes but it sure is entertaining when they do.
posted by
gomedome
on June 18, 2006 at 7:17 PM
| link to this | reply
NOPEACE
What part of 'clueless' do you not understand? As far as I am concerned those who came up with this load of B.S. you are presenting are idiots and are go against what Scouting is suppose to be all about.
It matter not what they believe, since all they are doing is forcing their beliefs on others, instead of actually doing what is right, what is truthfully morally straight and what is the best course of action to follow the TRUE values of Scouting.
I can say that I meant every word of it because I did. Go and learn to read and read my last post here, where I explain the truth about oaths. I know what those words mean to me and I can promise you I am about as loyal as it get sot eh TRUE principle of what the Oath means, not the religious B.S. that some are trying to force in to it.
Sorry, but those idiots who misunderstand the Scout Oath and Law do not speak for all Scouts, since there are a large number of past Scouts who are saying this is wrong, many of them are Eagles like myself. That very much says that these jerks you are quoting do not have a clue as to what Scouting is all about.
What I find very interesting here is that instead of speaking you own concepts, you once more resort to using the words of someone else, words which were already disputed in the post itself. You do nothing to prove hits post wrong. All you did was show father evidence that you are incapable of your own thoughts on anything.
posted by
kooka_lives
on June 18, 2006 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
And for those of you who are wondering, before you try to divert attention away from the content of the text, the Q and A comes from bsalegal.org
posted by
NOPEACE
on June 18, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
This is what the Boy Scouts of America has to say regarding this matter:
Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a volunteer Scout leader or member?
A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it addresses the issue of “duty to God” before duty to country, others, and self.
Q. Why is duty to God important to Scouting?
A. Since its founding in the United States in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America has had an ongoing commitment to encouraging moral, ethical and spiritual growth. The Boy Scouts of America believes that the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are central to Boy Scouts’ goals.
Q. What harm would come of admitting young people who are unwilling to do their duty to God?
A. The Scout Oath and Law have served as the foundation of Scouting for 94 years. It would be a disservice to over five million youth and adult members of Scouting to allow members to pick and choose among the elements of the Oath or Law.
Q. What allows the Boy Scouts of America to exclude atheists and agnostics from membership?
A. The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership group. As with any private organization, Boy Scouts’ retains the constitutional right to establish and maintain standards for membership. Anyone who supports the values of Scouting and meets these standards is welcome to join the organization.
Q. Don't Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists?
A. Boy Scouts of America is one of the most diverse youth groups in the country, serving boys of every ethnicity, religion, and economic circumstance and having programs for older teens of both sexes. That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, and it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.
Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?
A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership organization; leadership in Boy Scouting is a privilege and not a right. Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program. Boy Scouts will continue to select only those who meet Boy Scout standards and qualifications for membership.
Q. Is Boy Scouts implying that homosexuals do not have good moral or emotional character? What about other types of sexual immorality?
A. Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath. Morally straight is a broad term which includes all types of moral behavior. There are many persons who may be unsuitable role models of the Oath and Law for adolescent boys.
There it is in black and white. So again I ask, how is it that you say you recited the scout oath and law with sincerity and then say there is no God which is part of the foundation of the scouting program. The Second Point to the Scout Law is a Scout is Loyal. Are you being loyal to the principles that are the foundation for the scouting movement? If you say there is no God then you are not.
posted by
NOPEACE
on June 18, 2006 at 5:18 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - I've watched this comedy with some amusement
I was even going to comment on the post concerning the "risk" being taken by not believing in God but decided against it as the recipient of the comment is not capable of anything but rudimentary comprehension. To make a case to even include sexual preferences and inherent religious beliefs as moral issues, one must have their thought processes completely skewered by religious belief. This is where non believers have a decided advantage, there are no abstract religious concepts determining right from wrong. You also have to consider that the individual that you are challenging on this (claims of being an intellect aside) believes that Satan is responsible for same sex attraction, homosexual preference therefore is merely a weakness and a bad choice. This same person also cannot comprehend that belief is not a choice. One does not simply turn on belief or non belief. Nothing will change my instinctive reaction to the Christian faith I was exposed to as being a load of hoakum, I cannot pretend that I see it as meaningful, I cannot pretend I believe something that I find so ludicrous.
You would think that by just connecting a few dots, these bible thumpers promoting this nonsensical take on Pascal's Wager would understand that they cannot spit into the eye of their own God this way? In their language, their God is all knowing, omnipotent etc. etc., he did not give me my non believer's mind to penalize me for using it. He would also know if I were lying about believing in him. . . knuckleheads.
posted by
gomedome
on June 18, 2006 at 1:16 PM
| link to this | reply