cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/20749204
Another positive step in the right direction for an organization rife with brokenness. There’s a lot I don’t like about the organization, but this is something a love–a scouting organization open to young women and the lgbtq community. The next step is being inclusive of nonreligious agnostic and atheist youth and leaders. As well as ending the cultural appropriation of Native American peoples.
May this organization continue to build up youth, never allow further violence against youth, and make amends for all the wrongs. There’s a lot of good that comes out of organizations like this and I won’t discount it even though it’s riddled with a dark history.
The UU memorandum of understanding is irrelevant. I am not a member, and I think most atheists are not either. People should not be required to join a church or a religion to join the scouts.
I don’t believe in any gods, and would never say that something was a god if I did not think it was a god. Consciousness is not a god, nature is not a god, the laws of thermodynamics are not gods. Labeling these things gods only serves to imply some sort of mystery thing about it when there is none, I would consider it lying to do so. Do you think they would accept me? I don’t.
If the religious aspects were truly left to the scouts and their families, outright atheists would simply be accepted, and there would not need to be a memorandum of understanding so that a specific organization could participate, because they would have simply been accept beforehand.
The UU MOU demonstrates that “atheism” is not inherently incompatible with scouting. The memorandum does not mean that if you want to be an atheist and a scout, you must also be a Unitarian. It means that the duty required of the oath can be fulfilled by an atheist. How is it possible to fulfill a duty to “god” without believing in “god”? That MOU serves to clarify the distinction between what the BSA refers to as “god” and what other entities refer to as “god”. It demonstrates that the BSA uses a non-standard definition of “god”, and that we need to understand what they mean by that term before we can make a meaningful judgment of their policies.
I consider it lying for me to deliberately substitute my meaning of a word for the meaning intended by another. What you (and I) would and would not call “god” is completely irrelevant to how BSA uses the word. BSA does not hold to the idea that “thermodynamics cannot be god”. Quite the contrary. If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.
BSA does not hold to the idea that “consciousness cannot be god.” If a scout wishes to claim consciousness as god, BSA accepts it.
BSA does not hold to the idea that “God can only be a supernatural entity” or that “God refers to a sense of mystery”. If a scout does not wish to declare God to be a supernatural entity, BSA does not force them. If a scout determines that a sense of mystery is not necessary, BSA does not require it.
BSA developed their policies using one definition. You are using a completely different, contradictory definition. Your conclusions do not at all reflect their actual intent. It is intellectually dishonest for you to impose your meaning in place of their intended meaning.
The UU MOU demonstrates that they still discriminate. Any Christian denomination is automatically acceptable, for atheists they have to pick and choose saying “you’re one of the good ones”.
OK, that’s irrelevant. Those were clearly MY opinions, a demonstration of how I refuse to label things with the term ‘god’, followed by the rationale for me doing so.
I am not using any definition of ‘god’, I am just saying that it has a definition, not any specific one just some definition, otherwise the term would be meaningless. And if I were to label anything ‘god’ it would be because that thing fulfilled the requirements for this unspecified definition. If I were to label something as ‘red’ it would be because it fulfills the requirements to be called ‘red’. If it did not fit the definition of ‘red’ I would not apply the label ‘red’. In the same way, I would not label something as ‘god’ unless I thought the label fit. If I were to label something as ‘god’ it would imply that there was something different about it when compared to something that I would refuse to apply the term ‘god’ to. And there is nothing that I would be willing to label ‘god’.
Gotcha. You’re a connoisseur of religious philosophy. You know that it can only be called “god” if it comes from a specific region in France. Every other worldview is “sparkling belief”.
Apparently I have to say this again. Those are MY opinions. The goal of me sharing my opinions point out a position that I suspected would not be accepted by the scouts, at least your in interpretation of their rules. Your response was that atheists that did not believe the same as me could be accepted, which was irrelevant to the point. And here you insult me. Congratulations, you have confirmed my suspicions.
Have a wonderful day.