Re: The Optional God
Mitchell McLain (mmm@NCD.COM)
Thu, 2 Dec 1993 08:58:53 -0800
Sorry, but I'm more confused now than ever. What Joanne has posted indicates
to me that GSUSA is saying that words don't really mean what they mean. And
that you can apply whatever definition you want to them. It seems
disingenuous to me for GSUSA to print their promise one way and then allow it
to be recited aribitrarily. I understand the intent of GSUSA to recognize
and respect other beliefs, but if that's the case, it should be
straightforward and sincere enough to reflect that belief in the wording of
Traditional and contemporary understanding of 'God' has meant and continues
to mean "the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal,
infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing." [Webster.] That's the word (and
capitalization) that remains in the GSUSA promise, so that should be what's
understood when it's read. Instead, GSUSA says that it means whatever your
spiritual belief says it means. They say that they make no attempt to
interpret or define 'God', but then in the background information, they say
it means "Supreme Being," and "a Force higher than man." That sounds like a
definition to me, not quite the one I found in the dictionary, but
nonetheless a definition.
The word people use and find in the dictionary that more closely fits what
GSUSA is trying to reflect in their resolution is the word 'god' (small 'g').
That form of the word more accurately reflects what GSUSA says it means by
the 'God' form. The form 'god' is much more "inclusive" and still leaves the
form 'God' to mean what those of us who believe in Him understand it to mean.
GSUSA should print the word (or words -- "insert the name of your higher
Force here," perhaps) in their promise that most accurately represents what
they mean and then should require that it be recited as printed. The English
language has the words. Just use them as they're supposed to be used.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City