Good Boy Scouts don't need God

[rug]

May 13, 2013 10:32 AM
Written by Tom Krattenmaker

Depending on what happens at the Boy Scouts’ national meeting this month, gay Scouts might soon be accepted into the venerable organization. Even then, there will remain a large and growing group of Americans still barred by the Boy Scouts.

When will the Boy Scouts accept the non-religious?

The Boy Scouts of America recognizes an impressive range of religious affiliations that qualify one as “reverent” and, thus, eligible to participate. Two dozen varieties of Christianity get the nod, plus Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Bahai’ism and more. However, the non-religious are not welcome, and that poses a problem the Boy Scouts should address in addition to the sexual orientation question drawing so much attention.

Undergirding the Boy Scouts’ ban is the dubious premise that people cannot be moral without religious belief. It’s an assumption that non-believers are wisely challenging as the public face of atheism moves away from angry anti-religious diatribes, typified by the late Christopher Hitchens, toward a positive expression of non-belief summed up by the pithy phrase “good without God.”

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130513/OPINION/305130034/Good-Boy-Scouts-don-t-need-God

[patrice]

1. . . . &, btw, why would a God NEED anyone to need God?

[rug]

2. Precisely.

A god with needs is not a god at all.

[pipoman]

3. Why does anyone care what they do?

I get the need to be inclusive of gays and agree..'belief in a higher power' is found throughout the scouting program

[longship]

4. as the public face of atheism moves away from angry anti-religious diatribes, typified by Hitchens?

It's nice that the author chose to malign a person who cannot defend his position because he's dead. It's also convenient that the author erects a straw man characterization of the sadly late Christopher Hitchens.

If there is one thing that atheists are pretty much aligned on is the cartoonish theist characterization of atheists as strident, angry, etc.

Well, I am an atheist and I love to point out the way this pans out in the political sphere. Whenever an atheist speaks out in public they are inevitably portrayed as strident, militant, etc. There are even non-believers who profess the same. This invites the question about what those non-militant non-believers think about the astoundingly common GOP claim that the USA is a Christian country and the equally astounding claim that anybody opposed to that view is persecuting Christians for their beliefs, like somehow Christians are a persecuted minority in a country with a vast majority of believers in god(s).

Christopher Hitchens deliberately focussed his national book tour for God is Not Great not in the big northern cities, but straight through the heart of the Bible Belt where he spoke with and debated Christian apologists at every venue. On multiple occasions he had to book extra events because they had to turn away too many who wanted to see and hear what was being said. In almost every case, his opponents agreed to these so-called rematches. And there is a reason for that.

First, Hitchens indeed could satire and ridicule like the best. But he was always a gracious and polite person. Always! Of those who have had the opportunity to meet him, almost none speak ill of his outwardly polite personal demeanor. That's why, even though he was a formidable debate opponent, his opponents almost never spoke ill of him.

Now that he's gone, people are free to paint whatever portrait they choose. Those that portray him like this author either have an agenda, never having met the guy, or haven't listened to his many interactions, lots of which are available online.

I didn't agree with Hitch on all things, but I have to defend his legacy here. He wasn't right on everything, but he was pretty much dead on the target about religion's influence in culture, politics, and government.

He said it very well. Religion poisons everything.

The problem for this claim would be that if people kept religion to themselves, his statement wouldn't necessarily ring true. Unfortunately for Hitch's opponents they cannot dispute it with a straight face, and that is the crux of the problem with religion and is one this world must solve if we're going to live together on this planet and survive.

The extent to which that doesn't resonate is the extent that you may portray Hitchens as a militant, or some such. And you'd likely be wrong about both.