firstpusk

"firstpusk: would you explain what is "lousy" about the editorial opinions in the Wall Street Journal?" I think if you read my remarks about context above, you have a pretty good example of what I am talking about. Clark has been around a long time and has a reputation for sarcasm. In context, I think that would come through loud and clear. This goes beyond bias and beyond professional ethics and honesty. You know into FOXnews territory. By the way eisely, I have to apologize for taking your troll hook,line and sinker. Your remark is a classic, "I submit that the success of Fox News is simply the result of more honest reporting." You had to beat me over the head before I realized your brilliant satire. Good stuff and very funny.

The fiction of a liberal media persists. The media in the US is largely corporate and bows to those interests. If anything, our media is far to deferential to such interests. The remarks by Falwell were outrageous and intended to offend muslims. Beyond that, they were made on live national television on major network. Give me a break eisely. How many people saw 60 minutes compared to how many actually heard Clark's remarks at the press club. I often listen to the National Press Club but not many others I know do. On the other hand, if when I went to work on a Monday and asked if folks saw Falwell on 60 minutes, I got a substantial percentage that saw the report or the promos for it. Even my conservative colleagues thought the guy fell out of his tree again. The Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper with a lousy, extremely biased editorial page. Exactly when did Clark make the statement? What was the general context and tenor of the speech he gave? Was it a speech? Were the remarks in response to a question? What was the question? A good editorial page would insist on this kind of context. They instead are like you. They have an ax to grind. You have come to a conclusion and seek evidence to support it and you won't let the truth get in the way.

Bob White, Welcome home. Nicely put. It is indeed the duty of the chair to recruit. I think your take Eagle Foot's situation may very well be accurate. The chair is the one person to talk with in order to smooth things over. Confrontation is not the goal here, an effective program that delivers the promise in the district is the goal we should always seek.

Eagle Foot, I serve as my District's Volunteer Resource Chair. I act as kind of an information and recruiting clearing house for the key 3. I want to express my concern for how you have been slighted. Every volunteer deserves respect. You have agreed to carry out an important job and now feel slighted when you appear to be unceremoniously removed. I understand your frustration but I would not seek a confrontation. Remember why we volunteered in the first place for the boys. Unfortunately, we adults screw things up quite often. Talk with the other two members of the key 3, in person as soon as possible. Dont email that is too open to miscommunication. The Chairman of the District is responsible for filling the other committee positions (not the District Commissioner). I don't know who was involved in your recruiting. I consult with the DE, the chair and commissioner about openings and potential candidates. We determine who we want and devise a recruiting strategy. Once this is done the approach is made with job description in hand. Time commitments and length of term should be part of the discussion. As an operating chair, you would serve at the pleasure of the District Chair. That is why he should be contacted. Confrontation is not the best route. You have been treated badly and embarrassed, do not respond in kind. Instead, air your grievance with the person that can correct it. The most important question you need to ask yourself is what do you want? Do you seek reinstatement, apology, and assurance that this doesnt happen again? Only you can answer that. From my perspective, you have a broken volunteer recruitment, retention and recognition system in your district. Run to your nearest service center and get BSA publication #34512D Selecting District People. The process for proper care and feeding of volunteers is handled nicely there. A series of other publications directed at recruitment of volunteers is listed in the Section X. READ IT FIRST. If it makes sense, give it to your chair when you meet with him. You might even offer to help with volunteer resources. I think it is the best job in scouting.

Native children were taken away from their communities and not allowed contact with home, to speak their native tongue or to practice their religion. Significant ceremonies were outlawed and religious practices obstructed by US government officials. Scalia has continued in that tradition on the court. Americans unaware of such practices or willfully ignorant like the "honorable" justice disgrace those that have sacrificed for those freedoms.

"Particulars of the case aside, I'm just glad to read that Justice Scalia hasn't already made up his mind on the case before hearing all the arguments." Close, actually Scalia makes up his mind BEFORE he hears the arguments.

"It seems like all of these people who talk about separating God from government has forgatten the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence." I think that is a pretty broad assumption about motivations. Our founders wanted the government to allow free exercise of religion and that is precisely why they wrote the it should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." They understood the danger of official religion. England had been torn apart by religious war only the century before. I thank God every day for their wisdom and I pray that someday Antonin Scalia might find some...

"Um... has the BSA given up all public support, free use of lands and facilities, whatnot? I hadn't been aware of that. Was that announced at the website? Couldn't find it...?" IVF is receiving a share of dollars. In this instance it is different from the situation with the BSA. Maybe your council is getting money from the county, mine certainly isn't. "My point is there are other groups on college campuses that exclude certain people for various reasons & they are still allowed to exist and are still funded by the student paid activity fees." If they are getting student service fees, they are liable to the same exclusion as IVF. The article made some claims, but they were not supported.

"Firstpusk before you get your liberal shots in. I am not a conservative or any other title you want to say let me say this I believe that any group has the right to establish their own standards of leadership like the Scouts do." For someone who claims to take offense at being labled, you sure are fast to apply them to someone else. Didn't call you a conservative. The issue in the Dale vs. BSA was different. The Supreme Court found in favor of the BSA because it was a private organization. Here we have a group asking for public support that wants to exclude. IVF is asking for support from a government entity and then wants to discriminate on the basis of religion. The 1st amendment don't bend that way big guy. The establishment of religion by government is the one the founders found most fearful. It was the basis of the religous wars in Europe they sought to avoid here. "If a group claims to be Christian and is forced to have Non Christian Leaders then that group has effectivey shortchanged." But a student that is forced to pay for and can't participate in IVF is not shortchanged? Oh, that's right, they don't qualify as full citizens in the IVF world because unless you think the way they do, you aren't qualified. In their world, most Christians aren't Christians. "But hey lets see if the Clinton News Network will report on this story. I don't think so." The second time Mr. Don't-Label-Me seeks to apply a label to someone else. If CNN doesn't report it, it is simply because you have no story here. Just a bunch of talk radio claptrap.

"Firstpusk, I think you are missing the point of the post yourself. If colleges and universsities are allowed to dictate a diversity policy to the students and to the groups that are on campus it does violate the Constuition and is therefore illegal." I understood the claim from the start. The problem for the IVF is simple, they discriminate on the basis of religion. These organizations and leadership opportunities should be available to all students. They aren't. These institutions are not allowed to support these organizations. "Also, many Christians have tried to stop the enforcement of mandatory fees that go to support organizations that they would not normally support such as "Gay Lesbian Straight Alliance" Once the feei s collected it should be made available to all groups regardless of the groups views." Establish with the administration that membership and leadership are not open and you have a case for going after the groups. I work on a college campus. Exactly the groups the author claims are closed are open here. Besides, doesn't this point out the hypocracy of such "Christian" groups? They try to defund groups they don't agree with, run a closed group and then cry discrimination when they are rightfully denied funds and official status. "Also the article it self doesn't talk about fees at all it just talks about how the diveristy police are trying to froce their views on certain groups." The article makes a lot of unfounded accusations. Wendy seems to fly off the handle. She should have gotten the full story and then you would have been well-served and properly informed. Yes, I know plenty of liberals, libertarians and conservatives that try to deny freedom to those with which they disagree. Such accusations need to be grounded in fact. You accept Wendy's accusations without question because they fit your preconceived notions.

"What about groups that exclude men? Or those that exclude women? What's the difference?" Ed, What's your point?

Twocubdad, As a former university internal auditor, you are hitting the nail on the head. All students are required to pay the fee and as a result, the organizations looking for support must be open to all students. There are plenty of clubs and organizations that are not recognized and do not receive funds that still are reaching students. I think this talk and the assumptions of many that this is a conspiracy against Christianity are overblown. These assumptions are more than a bit un-Christian, in that they assume motivations that are not supported by the author of the article or those that agree with her.

"Coming back to the question in the original post, banning these Christian groups from campus and treating them differently from other groups that discriminate on campus is rank discrimination. Tax monies are not at issue here since the funds involved come from pools of student activity fees. My thought behind posting the original thread was to illustrate the kind of discrimination against believers that is going on. These are people who are being discriminated against on the basis of their harmless beliefs, just as scouting is being discriminated against." eisely, I read the article and came to the conclusion that Wendy McElroy made a lot of unsupported assertions about discrimination. It is pretty standard for colleges and universities to require student organizations that receive resources from the institution in the form of student fees to be open to all students. These requirements have been in place at many campuses for a number of years. IVF has recourse if they want to continue to discriminate. IVF is not required to have a "non-believer" in leadership only that they are open to the possibility. The IVF definition of believer is narrow enough that a substantial proportion of Christians would not be considered qualified. Her assertions that the IVF was not allowed to discriminate and other organizations were is likewise unsupported. FoxNews shows again why it is the most unreliable of broadcast news sources.

"I disagree. This logic could also be applied to Gov. supplied Clergy in the military. I looked foward to Friday night service at boot camp when I was in the Navy. I could not leave the base." No, it actually can't. You were not required to attend service. It was your choice. The military does not require chaplains to be of any particular religion. "When I was in collage many students did not have transportation so you only had what was on site. The money to the religous groups was no more or less then any other group. Also the money came from student fees not the state." The fees are required as a condition of attendance to the university. The university distributes the funds. The government (the university which is chartered by the state in some form) is not allowed to discriminate. If they give funds to a group that discriminates on the basis of religion, they violate their own rules and the law and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The other student groups are required to conform to these policies. Why should InterVarsity be allowed to discriminate?

I saw quite a bit of it. My wife was interested in watching. They went home before winter. We each commented early on that they seemed more concerned about what they were missing (modern conveniences rich food, etc.) than cutting wood. The analysis at the end by experts agreed with our assessment. They were not too likely to be able to survive the winter.

Rooster7, The same people that were upset about Clinton and his record with respect to ROTC take a pass on Bush. Your opinion about Clinton is well known on this board. Let me suggest that he has been much more forthcoming about his situation with regard to serving in the military than your man Bush. For that matter, his claim of not inhaling has been considerably more honest than Bush's beating around about his drug use.

Talk to the boys you have. Let them tell you what they like about scouts. Get them dreaming about things they would like to do. Make it a boy run program that seeks challenging, exciting activities. Encourage the boys and they are the programs best salesmen. I have never seen a troop die because they ran good program that was geared to what the boys want. The others ideas are great. Den chief is the best position to develop leadership in scouting. Working with your commissioner staff and the packs is certainly key. Just make sure that you have something tangible to offer a boy coming in. The program is what you bring to the table. And program is one of those food of love things Emeril talks about. It takes a good recipe a lot of love and time. But if you do it right there ain't nothing like it.

"and what led you to the conclusion there was a something in the middle?" Probably the scientific evidence...

"Here's the crux of this argument - a profound point of contention that many seem to be ignoring: Science = Truth Faith = Truth Therefore when science and faith disagree, only one can be right. There can only be one truth. Consequently, the theory of evolution (when taught in the public schools) is tantamount to the government declaring the faiths of some to be false." Rooster7, No one has ignored your point of contention. It is well understood that you and others want to claim that belief in God and evolution are mutually exclusive. The fact that there are a number of theists on this board that vehemently disagree belies your conclusion. It is a false dilema. The courts have examined this question a number of times. The courts use a test to ensure compliance with the establishment clause of the 1st ammendment from Lemon v. Kurtzman. It is a three pronged test. The last time the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue was the equal time law of Louisianna in Edwards v. Agguillard. "The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (4). The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) (5). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs." Edwards v. Aguillard No. 85-1513 U.S. Supreme Court Decision June 19, 1987 Teaching evolution will generally be based on state and local curriculum standards, duely established, First, the intent of teaching evolution is not religious, but secular. Children should have a solid grounding in science. Second, the primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. Properly taught the teacher indicates the material is scientific and does not speak to God's roll or any set of religious beliefs. And finally, it does not result in excessive entanglement of government with religion. To require teachers to address religious issues would be excessive entanglement.

"Quantum Physics time, space, and matter came into existence at the same time" This establishes creationism, how? The Bible says something about the big bang billions of years ago? And what about that multi-billion year time lag between then and the appearance of life. "Genetics recombination of genes occurs producing variables within the same species dna is actually extremely lengthy codes placed within each cell humans originated from one group of ancestors with a common female ancestor" And what does this prove? You need to establish that creationism can explain these facts and predict other phenomena. That's a problem for you. Creationism is used to stop asking questions, not to answer them. "Geology fossil records do not support Darwin's theory of evolution intermidiary fossils do not exist between species" You have been given these two at least a couple of times. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html And here are a few more for you. hominids http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ transitional vertebrate fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html whales http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ "Evolution is a hoax perpetrated on much of the world. It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down. Look at the figures for the % of Americans that support teaching creationism in the public schools. It's quite different from the figures FirstPusk and others would like you to believe with their "most americans" or "most Christians" comments. What is the evidence for macro evolution? When has it been tested? When has it been shown to be true? What experiments have proven it?" 29 evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Evidence for evolution an eclectic survey http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html It is interesting to me how easy it is to be a creationist if you refuse to look at the evidence. Americans and certain American Christians are uniquely likely to adopt a creationist stance. As I have said many times creationism is far from universal among Christians. And on the level of education and acceptance of evolution, I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I see no sources for the information, but I guess I have taken you to task a number of times for quote mining and sloppy sourcing. The PFAW study in 1999 found the exact opposite findings. What percentage of scientists in any of the above fields are creationists? I doubt if you could get 1/2% in any of them.

Nice try Weekender. That argument doesn't turn back, evolution is not a religious tennet of my church, it is science. Evolution is not preached in my church. Teaching evolution is not an issue for most people of faith. It goes to the issue of intent. The intent of the school is to teach science and evolution is the best science we have currently. You may personally disagree with it, but that is as it is. The 1st ammendment was crafted to keep the state out of the church and the church out of the state. The founders had a more vivid understanding of religious wars than we do.

"littlebille, firstpusk, sctmom - What you seem to be ignoring - IS - evolution is a theory." Rooster7, What you are ignoring is that creationism is not a theory. It is a set of religious tennets that is not supported by any scientific evidence. It is an article of faith not a scientific explanation. "This makes all the difference in the world. It is not fact. It's a conclusion based on fact, but those facts do not prove evolution conclusively." Many of these theoretical conclusions are about as solidly established as is possible. Darwin proposed descent with modification by means of natural selection. The word evolved only appears once in "The Origin of Species" and it is indeed the last word in the book. It is curious that the Theory of Evolution became how it is known. Evolution therefore becomes an equivocation. It is both the occurance of descent with modification and the explanation for its occurance. Theories are never "proven". They are accepted tentatively. If the evidence were to point to another explanation, evolution would be abandonned or modified. There are aspects of Darwin's theory that have been modified, i.e., gene transfer recently. "No matter what you think of creationists or any other religious faith, the government has an obligation to remain neutral until your theory becomes fact (beyond doubt)." The schools have an obligation to teach science in science class. Evolution is science, creationism is not. "As for evolution not having any holes, there are many men (and women) who are very knowledgeable in the sciences that disagree." There are certainly questions that have not been answered. However, there are very few trained scientists that disagree with evolution. You would have a much easier time finding ministers that disagree with creationism. As a matter of fact the among plaintiffs in the suit against the Arkansas equal time law were many church officials and ministers. "The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas " McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education - Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton "As to who supports "quality education" and who does not, that's not really worth debating since it's all a matter of opinion." It is not a matter of opinion. I want my children to get there religious education at home and in Sunday school according to the tennets of my church. I want them to get science in science class not the warmed over lessons from someone else's Sunday school.

"Let me try to restate my point for you in a simple way using simple words: Some church teaches that God created the Earth and everything else in six days of twenty four hours, and if you don't believe it, you're going to hell. The public school teaches that man evolved over millions of years. These teachings conflict. The public school is teaching something that contradicts what that church is teaching. Can you agree that what the school teaches contradicts what the church teaches?" Okay, according to your reasoning, we need to shut down publicly funded medical schools because they conflict with the teachings of Christain Science. We need to eliminate federallly funded inspections of pork processing because it conflicts with the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. And of course, the central theory of biology, the one that does more than anything in intellectual history to explain the development and diversity of life has got to go. Your theology simply can't handle it. The problem is not the science or the scientists. They both are doing the job they are supposed to do. They are explaining the world we live in. The problem is your theology can't handle the reality of an old earth, of changing life over time and the ability of evolution to explain it and the inability of creationists to explain anything other than their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Earlier you asked a question. "How can one theory of the origns of man and the universe be a religous belief, yet another mutually exclusive theory of those origins not be a religous belief?" The answer is that creationism actually is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. It has no support other than an acceptance of one specific interpretation the first few chapters of Genesis. This interpretation is one held by specific Christian sects. Evolution instead is a theory derived from observation and experimentation. The evidence for the theory of evolution has been mounting for nearly a century and a half. No substantial scientific work has controverted the theory of evolution. It is science. Your "theory" is not. An important part of the test for unconstitutional entanglement with religion by the state is the intent of the governmental action. Those that support creationism do so to further religion and these very specific, Biblically literalist religious beliefs. Those that support evolution in the schools do so to provide a quality education.

"firstpusk and littlebillie, I would suggest that you improve your reading comprehension skills." RobK "Nor did I say that evolution is "de facto religion"... RobK "I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching." RobK I really enjoy your sense of humor. Are you trying to make creationists look silly, kind of an Andy Kaufman thing?(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

Thank you. It took nearly two months, but you finally admit that there is no viable scientific alternative to evolution. You might laugh out loud, but posting quotes without ensuring they represent the original source is unethical. The last time you did this, you posted six quotes. Only one had the correct source information. Your track record is not exactly sterling.