AZMike

"We use these: http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=ZAG+ROLLING+WORK&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTNUMBER=020800R&SDesc=FatMax%26%23174%3B+4%2Din%2D1+Mobile+Work+Station Utensils & Silverware fit in the partitioned sections on the top. Pots & larger items go in the bin on the bottom. The wheels are heavy duty & roll over rough ground. Handles collapse for storage in the trailer." infoscouter, I bought one of these as a personal family chuckbox on your recommendation and like it a lot. Thanks!

""So are we dealing with the very vocal minority??? " I'd have to say so, yes. Polls pretty consistently show the country is pretty well split nearly 50/50 on the issue of gay marriage, with more recent polls showing a gradual trend toward acceptance. Yet, every time it's makes it to the ballot, voters have so far rejected the legality of the concept. This is mainly because at best, maybe 60% of eligible voters actually excercise their right to do so. In this case, 50.1% of that 60%, or 30.5% of all voters can decide an issue,(or decide who gets elected.) So, even though a plurlity of the population, maybe even a majority hold an opinion, only 30.5% actually decide. That vocal minority is not the "liberal" media, or the 2-4% of the population that might be gay, or the 49 - 51% that might accept gay marriage, it's the 30.5% that shows up to vote. That's the civic lesson in all this. " A lot of electoral decisions are decided by senior citizens, as they still seem to consider voting a civic duty, and often don't have to deal with working around job hours. They also seem to write a large proportion of cranky letters to the editor. A huge event in the life of many younger voters, apparently is the release of the Halo 4 video game this year, which will have young gamers camping out overnight to get a copy as early as possible, so they can rush home and spend all day playing it and tweeting about it. The release date? Election Day, 2012. I'll be curious to see if this has any effect on voting patterns. Probably not a huge one, but I doubt many 60 year olds will be in line at Best Buys instead of the poll booths.

Hopefully, the theme wasn't "Renounce the Great Satan, America as a Hostage in the Basement of the U.S. Embassy." Wow. I had no idea that Iran was the planned site.

kros17, as an exiled Nigerian prince who also has access to secret bank accounts that only to be needing a small amount of funds to secure vast dollars resources, may I be so forward as to suggest that my country's bank accounts are the perfect investment resource for the vast sums of wealthiness that your firm, (insert firm name here), can be the only one to make a perfect financial match?

"Well according to google there are 4 states with issues on the ballot for November. They are Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. I guess its just a matter of waiting to see what the voters have to say this time around." The Minnesota case is unusual in that it will allow the voters to decide whether the current statutory declaration of marriage as between a man and a woman should be included as an amendment to the state constitution - this is expressly to prevent the rule by judicial activism that has sought to eliminate the will of the electorate. The legislature provided a specific title for the ballot measure, Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman, but the Democrat Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, decided, all on his own, to rename the ballot measure Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples. He was taken to court over this, and the state supreme court just slapped down Ritchie and slapped him down hard: "In a victory for Republican lawmakers and allied groups, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that two constitutional amendments will be presented to voters in November in the form the GOP-majority Legislature intended. In two 4-2 rulings Monday, Aug. 27, the court dismissed a challenge to the wording of the proposed voter ID question and rejected Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchies attempts to rewrite the titles of the voter ID and marriage amendment questions. We conclude that when the Legislature has included a title for a ballot question in the bill proposing a constitutional amendment, the appropriate title the secretary of state must provide for that ballot question is the title designated by the Legislature, the court wrote. Ritchie exceeded his authority by substituting titles of his own for the ones passed by the Legislature, it said." http://www.twincities.com/ci_21410796/minnesota-supreme-court-rejects-secretary-state-wording-constitutional

Are you talking about state recognition of your marriage as an inalienable right (with the attendant economic benefits) by issuing a marriage license, the right to compel a JoP or a religious denomination to conduct a marriage ceremony, or what? Does being an "inalienable right" mean the state cannot place any restrictions on it (underage marriages, # of people involved, a woman and her cat, two cousins, a guy and an inanimate object, two dudes, etc.)?

"I am glad I do not live in AZ. during the summer." You don't have to shovel heat! Besides, if it wasn't for the heat, we'd be more overcrowded than Los Angeles... There's still lots to do in the summer in the Valley and around the state (it's cooler up in Northern AZ, too - as you go north in latitude, you go up in average elevation in Arizona). Lots of lake and river trips, Flagstaff, the Canyon, etc.

WasE61: "The Catholic Church did not formally embrace Aquina's writings as theological doctrine for some 600 years AFTER his death. I submit, that this adoption is more of a populist acceptance by the Church due to social-political pressures, rather than some divine revelation. " Say what now? St. Thomas Aquinas's writings (which are many, and varied, and embrace far more than theories of Natural Law) were formally adopted well before the 600 year mark. The Church tends to move very slowly on issues that impact doctrine, and there was a great deal of discussion and disagreement (even within St. Aquinas's own order) for a short time during and after hi death, but the intellectual brilliance of his works, such as the Catena Aurea and the Summa Theologica, was recognized early on and within his own lifetime by the Church's hierarchy, including the popes, the universities, and the studia of his own order - this wasn't a popular uprising of belief against a Church hierarchy. The Church would not have considered his views as divine revelation in any case, nor would Aquinas have claimed them as such. They would have been evaluated on how well they explicated existing revelation and the Deposit of Faith. 3 of his works were written on the orders of Pope Urban IV, so it's not like he was working outside the box of Catholic theology. Aquinas died in 1274. By 1279, the Dominican Order had condemned all those who spoke irreverently of his writings. The seminaries and universities (all religious at that time) accepted the Summa as an official textbook to be used in the study of philosophy and the formation of faith among the laity and the clergy. As the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states, "In every one of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly honoured. At the Council of Lyons [1274] his book "Contra errores Graecorum" was used with telling effect against the Greeks. In later disputes, before and during the Council of Florence [1431], John of Montenegro, the champion of Latin orthodoxy, found St. Thomas's works a source of irrefragable arguments. The "Decretum pro Armenis" (Instruction for the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost verbatim from his treatise, "De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis" (see Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). "In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican", writes Leo XIII (Encyclical "Aeterni Patris"), "one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results." St. Thomas Aquinas's works were so esteemed and accepted by the Church that at the Council of Trent [1545, just 271 years after the death of Aquinas], the Summa Theologica was laid on the altar by order of the conclave along with the Bible and the decrees of the popes, "from whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration" for the Council. No other Doctor of the Church has been so honored. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was issued for the training. instruction, and reference of priests in matters of theology, was a popularization of the Summa Theologica.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

(edited to move to spin-off thread on Natural Law)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

The opinions of the polled American public en masse matter less, perhaps, than the opinions of those who actually exercise their franchise. Those who are willing to legally vote seem to have a decisive opinion on the matter.

"AZMike, assuming their church is also a CO, if that CO has a positive view toward them, I'm guessing they'll be BSA adult members. Like NJ says, I am not aware of anything in the policy that indicates otherwise. So, are you ever going to answer any of my questions?" Re the incest queston, I wasn't asking about the BSA policy, I was asking if you would be comfortable with them in Scouting. Will you answer that question, or duck? I did answer your question, as I said on another thread. My answer was, "I don't know." When is that not an acceptable response? I don't have the knowledge about the welfare system to be able to give an explanation of how the welfare system should apportion governmental and personal contributions (although all governmental funds are ultimately personal) but if your mind jumps around from subject to unrelated subject like a hummingbird with ADD trapped in a tin can, I'll still try to oblige you by answering your questions as best I can. This doesn't relate at all to what we were discussing as we were discussing Eugenics before you decided to swerve the conversation towards American welfare policy. Nevertheless, I told you that I would oppose welfare policies that were Eugenic in nature, and as a general principle, would promote the goal of subsidiarity in government welfare programs. That was a very clear answer. What part of THAT don't you understand? As you edited your initial response to my question where you refused to engage with my question, let me state it in another fashion - do you consider yourself religious, and if not how do you reconcile the elements of the Scout Oath and Law that relate to God? You stated (as best I can recall) that it was not an issue, so there was no need to respond, and spoke for Merlyn, who you said was not currently involved in Scouting. Merlyn did not speak up for himself. You then referred me to a bad link about Buddhism, for some reason, and suggested that I look up the name of another poster who was Buddhist and said that you could be a Buddhist and not believe in God, then deleted all that when you edited your post. If you still don't want to answer in depth, or at all, or feel more comfortable simply saying you don't know the answer to a question, that's fine, too.

NJ: "AZMike, I have a question for you about your hypothetical adult brother and sister (or brother and brother) openly living together in a sexual relationship: Are you aware of any national BSA policy that prevents them from being adult leaders? I'm not. I don't think there is one. I don't think there needs to be one, because the local unit's authority to select it's leaders takes care of it. My guess is that 100 percent of local units would, and will continue to, choose not to have a leader in that situation. My guess also is that if given the option, somewhere less than 100 percent (I have no idea how much less, I would guess 20 to 40 percent less, though it's not really important) would choose not to have an openly gay leader (and not your two hypothetical brothers.) So if the hypothetical and most-likely non-existent situation of which you speak does NOT require a national policy (other than the policy that units choose their leaders), why does the issue of gay people require a national policy? That's the real issue here. It's not about who should be a leader, it's about who decides who should be a leader. And that is almost never National. " Interesting point but not relevant to the question. Would you be comfortable with this situation in Scouting as you might be with a gay (non-incestuous) couple?

Would incestuous relationships also be okay, as long as the participants are both consenting adults? There are some concerns about genetic disorders from the offspring of consanguine intercourse, so let's presume that either 24 year old brother and 26 year old sister are married but the brother had a vasectomy, or the husband is a 25 year old male and his mother is post-menopausal and they're in a committed relationship, or to make it easier, a 25 year old man and his 32 year old brother. They don't talk about their sex lives, but they're "out" and don't want to hide the fact that they're blood relatives. They hold respectable jobs, are clean-cut, active in their local church and the pastor of their denomination has no problem with the whole incest thing. One of the partners has a son from a former relationship, who may or may not be a sibling as well as a stepson. No one's being hurt. One or both partners wants to be a scout leader, or at least actively involved in a committee position. To those of you who support the cause of openly gay scout leaders, what would be your take on this?

From a follow-up story: He also said he and his partner attend Our Lady of Lourdes and it is widely known that they are gay. He contacted Scouting officials in part, he said, because he was no longer comfortable hiding his sexual preference in his role with the Boy Scouts when he was open about it everywhere else, including at Humana, where he has been involved in an organization of gay and lesbian employees. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep a low profile and stay in the closet with the Boy Scouts, he said in a June 22 letter. . . Catholic officials initially refused to request Bourkes resignation. Our Lady of Lourdes pastor Fr. Scott Wimsett and archdiocesan Scouting liasion Fr. Jeff Gatlin both supported Bourkes disclosure of his orientation. Later, however, higher archdiocesan officials decided to support the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy: (Note: this comment is unsourced. - bear in imd, this is from a blog that supports homosexuals within the Catholic Church.) In a statement,[Cecelia Price, archdiocesan spokesperson] confirmed that the Boy Scouts contacted Wimsett and Gatlin and that both responded that they believed it was up to the Boy Scouts to enforce its policies. Price said the archdiocese later concluded that the charters signed by church pastors require them to conduct Scouting programs according to policies set by the Boy Scouts of America, as well as Catholic Church policies. Her statement also said that it is the expectation of the Church that adult leaders whether heterosexual or with same-sex attraction in any ministry strive to lead chaste lives and seek to both accept and witness to the full teachings of the Church on chastity and charity, including teachings on the sanctity of marriage. http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/tag/brooke-hinkle/ This from another article: Bourke told local media after he refused to resign, the council contacted the churchs priest, Fr. Scott Wimsett, and later Fr. Jeff Gatlin, the Scouting liaison for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville. Bourke claimed both refused to remove him from his Boy Scout post. He stepped aside only after the Boy Scouts threatened to revoke the churchs scouting charter. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2921118/posts ...and... Bourke, who initially refused to quit, said in an interview that he decided he had no choice after the Rev. Scott Wimsett, pastor at Our Lady of Lourdes, told him Thursday that the parish might lose its Scouting charter unless he left.... Bourke said that officials from the Lincoln Heritage Council then called Wimsett, the pastor, and asked him to remove Bourke from his leadership role. And when Wimsett refused, the executives contacted the Rev. Jeff Gatlin, the Scouting liaison for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville... Bourke said Gatlin told him that he also rejected the Boy Scouts request. Neither priest responded to phone calls; Cecelia Price, an archdiocesean spokeswomen, said they cannot discuss a pastoral and personal conversation with a parishioner and volunteer. In a statement, she confirmed that the Boy Scouts contacted Wimsett and Gatlin and that both responded that they believed it was up to the Boy Scouts to enforce its policies. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120819/NEWS01/308190057/Boy-Scouts-force-out-gay-leader-Louisville So, we only have Bourke's word that the 2 pastors refused to kick him out, as the two priests understandably can't comment. The arch-diocese says, no, the priests felt the Boy Scouts can decide how to enforce its policies. Unless these two priests are really out there out of touch with their Church's teachings (which does happen, but from looking at the parish's website, it doesn't sound like it is an uber-liberal parish), it would be unlikely that they would support an openly gay parish member living with his partner. They probably were compassionate and supportive in their statements to him, but it's unlikely that it happened the way Bourke is claiming. It sounds like there is some spin going on.

"Your bizarre accusations that most atheists are genocidal is a good example why." I don't think most atheists are genocidal. I think the majority of atheist leaders of countries have been democidal, as the stats show. The odd atheist president of a western country is unlikely to be able to slaughter significant portions of his population (with the exception of abortion), even if he wanted to, thanks to the stability of western political systems. Mostly. The comment was in reference to why most people don't trust atheists as political leaders.

Merlyn: "There's one OUT atheist in congress (Rep. Pete Stark of CA), but according to the Secular Coalition's poll of congress, there are 28 members of congress "who do not personally believe in a higher power" (a little over 5%)." So you have 28 members of Congress who don't have the courage to announce their convictions? This is according to the Secular Coalition, who claims they did a secret poll and won't announce their names as they don't want to "out" any secret atheists. As only 6 members of Congress refused to respond to respond to a request to identify their religious beliefs or didn't know what their religion was, and as packsaddle claims that some Buddhists don't believe in God (there are 2 Buddhists that we'll give the benefit of the doubt as possibly "not believing in a Higher Power," not even Karma), 2 simply identified as belonging to "other" (non-Protestant) religions (which could include Starks, who officially identifies as a Unitarian), and as there are no religiously unaffiliated members (http://www.pewforum.org/government/faith-on-the-hill--the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress.aspx), that still leaves 18 members of Congress who are atheists, but lie about their true beliefs to their constituents. Perhaps this is considered justified out of a hitherto unknown atheist Taqiyya dispensation from Richard Dawkins. The fact that there are only 18 members of Congress who are Godless Lying Cowards is a little surprising... (Just kidding. I kid the godless, lying, cowards out of love...) Pete Stark probably wouldn't be my first choice of an atheist role model. I can't repeat some of the crazy things he says on a family forum, but feel free to look under "Controversial Statements" on his Wikipedia page .

My best recollection, from a biography of Ayn Rand I read a long time ago, was that she had an "open marriage," or partially-open marriage, and insisted on the right to have sex with her acolytes. I can't remember if she offered the same privilege to her spouse. Not my choice of a philosopher, and I understand Ryan picked some parts of her philosophy while discarding the others. Rand was about as objectionable as Alinsky, I guess.

packsaddle: "It's kind of like that question I asked AZMike in the other thread which he seems not to want to answer, the one related to health care and eugenics. I get that people don't like certain ideas. I'd just like to understand the reasoning for their dislike. " packsaddle, I gave up on answering your question, convoluted as it was, as you refused to answer mine, since you got upset when I asked you how you squared your views with the Scout Oath and Law, declaring that you didn't have to explain your religious views to me (a post you have since edited, I note, to remove that comment, presumably to drop that inconsistency down the ol' Memory Hole) and to amend your comments about Buddhism. Fair enough, but if you want to shut down dialogue, don't be surprised if I'm not interested in responding to your questions, either. In point of fact, unlike many people on the Internet who are experts and knowledgable about all manner of things (at least, so long as they can get to Wikipedia or Google and start cutting and pasting before responding), I have to admit that I don't have much knowledge about the welfare system or how it operates, so I really can't give you a good answer on how I would operate a model system or apportion the funds. Sorry. I understand this might be an important topic for you, based on your comment about the social security system, but what can I say? I know you want some kind of answer to try to tie this to Eugenics, so I guess all I can tell you is that government funds shouldn't be used for abortion, in my opinion, or to murder or sterilize members of other races or classes that the government finds undesirable, in the hopes of creating a stronger "race." I would presume you also find eugenics deeply objectionable. If not, we really don't have the same set of social references to carry on a discussion. Is that what you are looking for?

"It also interests me that his income rose so dramatically. I find it fascinatin' that fellows who take a public service job for relatively modest wages seem to do so well for themselves." I think that's because of the income from his wife. Ryan's bishop has some interesting comments on whether Ryan's economic beliefs are "Catholic" or not: http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/3366-bishop-column.html

Paul Ryan released his tax returns today - nice to read that: "The Ryans donated $12,991 to charity in 2011, and $2,600 to charity in 2010. Those contributions went to such groups as the Boy Scouts of America, Junior Achievement, and Women and Childrens Horizons, according to the campaign."

"Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege. " If no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, in that specific case, sure. The use of public prayer in other circumstances I described, no problem. Merlyn": "Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion." So, in your opinion, atheism is a religion? Merlyn: "It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too. The generic religious tenets held by some religions (Trinitarianism or polytheism) are included in the free exercise of religion clause. The 7th Circuit decision seems to have held the belief that atheism is a religion, or should be granted the rights afforded to a religion. Except when it doesn't want to be seen as a religion. Or it does. "Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry." Welsh v. U.S. concerned a conscientious objector who had no religious beliefs, and SCOTUS decided in his favor, which was appropriate. Kaufman v. McCaughtry (which was 7th Circuit decision, not SCOTUS) concerned whether atheist prisoners had the same right to meet as members of religious groups, and whether the atheist defendant had the right to possess homosexual sadomasochistic pornography, " including but not limited to flagellation, bondage, brutality to or mutilation or physical torture of a human being, which illustrates the high moral character of the atheist in question. The 7th Circuit court decision in this was memorably screwy, especially as the defendant himself said atheism is the antithesis of religion. It would have made more sense as part of the right to peacefully assemble or free speech. If atheism is the functional equivalent of religion, that also opens a whole hornet's nest as to whether atheist arguments could ever be allowed to be expressed in state-funded schools...Are you sure you want to go there? In Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS certainly recognized that an atheist cannot be compelled to take a religious oath to be a notary public, which is a type of public office, which seems fair, although again, it suggested that explicitly atheistic (although not scientific) comments could be seen as expressions of religious belief. If so, it would be appropriate to prohibit the teaching of any atheist viewpoint in public schools and universities, under the 1st Amendment. As I said, I don't have an issue with atheists being allowed to hold office if that is the will of the electorate, and the marketplace of ideas is the best defense against such people. "That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run." Nor is it. I did not say it should be a law (the opposite in fact). And religious minorities hold public office all over the U.S. Catholics are a religious minority in the U.S., although the largest individual denomination of Christians, and barring Biden being dumped for Hillary, a Catholic will be the Vice-President next year. As I said, it is instead a perception problem that exists for an atheist who wants to seek public office - the majority of people don't trust them (in fact, they trust them less than religious minorities - see the link I provided), and most people have seen the results of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries. There have been 28 atheist countries in the world, with 89 atheists ruling those countries. More than half of those (58%) engaged in democidal acts (i.e., mass genocide against their own citizens). If you also include the death figures for those countries they forcibly invaded and annexed, the body count for atheist leaders stands somewhere between 148 million and 260 million, depending on whose stats you use (as atheist leaders are pretty efficient at eliminating pesky historians). Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined. So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium. So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread? "I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry." No. People are allowed to dislike people whom they distrust for good cause. You can call that bigotry if you like, I would call it proper discernment. "If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller." Except, atheism is not a religion. Or is it? I'll defend anyone's freedom of religion, within reason. I won't defend the political rights of someone who denigrates religion, absent special circumstances. It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh? No, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At best, Justice Hugo Black made the argument that atheism was religion, except when it wasn't. Go figure. Straw man; plenty of atheists defend religious freedom, including me. You just seem to make excuses to not bother. Right... Well, the general public doesn't appear convinced that the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, since the health choices are up to the individual. Are you against forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions? Many people do believe the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, as the health choices are NOT up the individual but are mandated by the federal government. Yes, I would be against forcing a JW to cover the cost of transfusion in a health-care plan for his employees, that he pays for, as long as the employee knows up front the coverage provided. The potential employee can take this into account when deciding for whom to work, as (until recently), the type of coverage provided was one of many factors employers could use to attract potential employees. If you don't want you or your family to be covered by such a plan, don't work for that guy. If you think the government has no place in your bedroom, you shouldn't expect the government (that is, the taxpayer and the employer) to pay for your contraceptives and abortion drugs. In point of fact, no one will ever be denied a blood transfusion if they need one, as ERs will provide it, for free if you can't afford it (and if you give blood transfusions regularly, you get a credit if you need one...). And no one will die because they are denied an abortifacient (quite the opposite, in fact) or an oral contraceptive because they are in conflict with a religious employer's beliefs. "And no, you don't have to travel to Pakistan, but as in every similar case of someone being held by a faraway government, you can sign petitions and urge your own government to put pressure on the government. And, of course, if Pakistan can get away with imprisoning atheists, maybe next time it'll be Christians. Will you bother to do anything then?" If its Christians, you betcha. BTW, Have you taken any action to prevent the discrimination against the Church in China? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Or Berkeley? What have you done? Did write a letter to your editor about the atheist P.Z. Myers profaning the Eucharist? Did you raise your voice in protest to the "artwork" that depicted a crucifix submerged in urine? No? Then why should I spend time protesting blasphemy laws that impact you? In a world filled with every manner of evil - the sexual trafficking in children, poverty, forced starvation and relocation of populations, ethnic cleansing, child pornography - the fears of atheists rank fairly low for most people.

"What's that got to do with Christian special privilege? Having the city council open each meeting with a prayer from your religion is a special privilege (and illegal), not a right. " No, it's not illegal, nor is it a special privilege. Every session of Congress opens like that. America is still largely a country marked by religious observance, If your argument is correct, then all the sessions and all the legislation passed is illegal and presumably invalid. As American culture is largely religious and believes in God (lack of belief in God is about 7%, per Gallup) it seems appropriate that the vibrancy and diversity of religious expression is celebrated in our public observances. As a small subculture of Americans do not believe in God, and an even smaller number of those can be presumed to even care about such issues - many atheists just don't believe in God but don't concern themselves with the political concerns of what has been called the "High Church" atheists - it would seem that the atheist demand that the majority of Americans cease the public display of respect for religion is itself, by definition, a special pleading. "Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference?" If a state constitution banned Jews, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Buddhists, or even Scientologists from public office, it would effect me, as the state control of religion is both unconstitutional and a threat to my own free practice of my religion. But, as most atheists claim, atheism is not a religion. It's a negative. When criticized for the logical historical consequences of atheism - genocide, eugenics, repression - they try to wiggle out from under the responsibility for their ideology by claiming, "oh, no - you can't blame me for all THAT - you see, atheism is just a lack of belief in the supernatural. That's all it is." So, fine. It's just a negation, or a nothingness, by most atheists' own admission. You CAN discriminate against a nihilistic philosophy, just as the government can -or should - be able to discriminate against a communist or a Nazi holding public office. One should not discriminate against a religious belief in the political arena. If we accept that atheism is a philosophy or a world-view, one can quite acceptably and reasonably discriminate against those, as we discriminate against those who hold the belief that fascism is correct, or Marxism is correct. Discrimination in the broadest sense means to hold that one thing is acceptable and another is not. Belief in a negation is not properly speaking, covered by the "free practice of religion" clause. In practice, though, I would agree that a requirement that someone profess a belief in God probably isn't a good idea, and that even those who hold extreme political and philosophical positions should be able to run for public office. The marketplace of ideas, and the natural revulsion most people feel towards atheists will tend to eliminate most from serious consideration as political candidates, for the reasons set forth below. "There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance... " "Well, now you're just making up "reasons". Propose a "practical" reason. And yes, it was about intolerance. " The practical reasons most atheists find it difficult to get elected to office, outside of a few insular secular enclaves, is that the vast majority of Americans just don't trust them - as the atheists' own research shows. Read this: http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/ - according to an atheist's own research, atheists are ranked below rapists by most respondents in terms of moral behavior. Yes, the average atheist will have a hard time getting elected to public office if his beliefs are known to the electorate. (And I feel comfortable saying "his," as the majority of atheists are men, and white men at that, and very geeky white men on top of it all, based on the atheist convention I witnessed. Atheist forums regularly bemoan the lack of attendance by people of color, who generally have better things to do with their time, at the various "skeptic" conventions they hold, and the sexist treatment women receive at most atheist and skeptic conventions is so heinous that more and more women opt out - this is a continuing topic of discussion on atheist forums, BTW.) A crack-addicted drag queen on probation who failed anger-management classes but who still goes to church every now and then has a better chance of being elected than a sober and intelligent atheist. Why? Because people realize that atheist "morality" is inherently squishy and malleable. While we all fall short of the ideal, most people accept that there is an objective morality, and that requires a source - something more than societally-accepted conventions or forms of behavior that natural selection has created to preserve the species and allow it to "flourish," in Sam Harris' hackneyed phrasing. The majority of people do not trust atheists, almost instinctively. That's not to say you are all bad people, or even that a majority of you are. Many atheists are decent people. But to the extent they are seen as "good" people, it is because they model their behavior on religious norms, even as they deny the source of that morality. People also don't trust the ungrateful, incidentally. And, because most sensible people are realists, they don't trust people who have nothing to lose if they act immorally and don't get caught: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/10/belief-in-hell-makes-people-act-better-h I don't share that particular viewpoint, but many sensible people do. "If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller." Except, atheism is not a religion. The Constitution does not say, "the free practice of religion, or lack thereof." Priorities, Merlyn, priorities. It's disingenuous for atheists to argue that the religious must protect the atheist's freedom when the atheist does not act to protect the religious. In such an instance, the atheist is sitting in Freedom's lap in order to slap her in the face. I also note that my own religious freedoms ARE being impinged, even as atheists grow ever more strident in the marketplace of ideas. I haven't heard any of them opposing the HHS mandate on my behalf. But apparently, they expect me to travel to Pakistan to defend some numbskull who posted a philosophically naive idea on Facebook. I do indeed recall Pastor Niemller, who supported Ho Chi Minh and won the Lenin Peace Prize. As a model for righteous behavior from the Confessional Church, I would rather favor Pastor Bonhoeffer, thanks very much.

"Well, I wasn't TALKING about constitutional rights; I was talking about special privileges. Some Christians whine when e.g. a city council has to stop opening meetings with the lord's prayer." Some atheists whine about city councils opening a meeting with any prayer. I have no problem with either an interfaith prayer, or preferably, rotating chaplaincy so different faiths can begin the invocation. "What do you think about US states that say atheists can't hold public office, or Indonesia imprisoning people for stating they're atheists?" Which U.S. states have laws against atheists holding public office? Not state laws, but their state constitutions: Arkansas "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." Maryland "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God" Mississippi "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state" North Carolina "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God" Pennsylvania "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth" South Carolina "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution" Tennessee "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state" Texas "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" Huh! I didn't know that. My first reaction is, "Cool!" but understand that you might not share my enthusiasm. But according to you, these are no longer have the force of law, so what's the beef? I like the Texan one, actually - it parallels the BSA policy. There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance... "So you don't care about injustice outside the US?" I recognize that I have little power to change things overseas, and that there are more important and pressing issues overseas (genocide, epidemics, infanticide, forced abortions, slave labor camps, the suppression of Christianity, etc.) that concern me more. If people of my own faith are being suppressed, is it logical that I would expend what little personal influence I have overseas to protect a subculture that stands in opposition to what I (and he vast majority of people) believe? I don't wish them harm, but given that they will probably not support my right to the public display of my religion, why should I support their belief that they should be able to dis a religion in public? If the atheists are so butt-hurt over the display of a Nativity scene in the public square at Christmas-time, why should they (or you, Merle ) be surprised that I don't choose to spend my time and money supporting them when they get a beat-down in a country that has a very, very, VERY, different view about the place of religion in the public square. There also appears to be a kind of terminal stupidity in those rare atheists who, living in a predominately Muslim country, decide to make such statements on their Facebook page: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/9027145/Atheist-Indonesian-in-protective-custody-after-being-beaten-by-mob.html I'm not saying it's right, he may have been courageous in his own way, or maybe he was so unsophisticated about IP addresses that he didn't think his statements could be traced on the Internet, but it was kind of a stupid thing to do in that culture.

"Yes, I am a member. Here is one of those old threads: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=20866#id_213050" That thread link appears to be dead. So in the absence of a preserved thread, would you be kind enough to discuss how you reconcile the ideals of scouting with your own atheism? "In NC a few years back a voter registrar informed me that in NC, you can't vote if you don't believe in God. I think that has changed since then though. But it was recent enough to be within my lifetime." How would he know that? Did you have to recite the Lord's Prayer or something before he would let you vote? "Does this mean that Buddhist people are atheists?" "You'd have to ask a Buddhist but at least one in these threads has affirmed that Buddhism is atheistic. Crank up the ol' Vic20 and search on 'studentscout'. The internet is your friend." You're sure about that, kiddo? When I use "studentscout site:www.scouter.com" I got this message: No results found for studentscout site:www.scouter.org Of course, someone who styles himself or herself "studentscout" and says he/she is a Buddhist can claim to also be an atheist on the Internet, and who cares? Sam Harris has made the same claim. The vast majority of Buddhists would agree that it is a religion, based on my exposure to realio, trulio actual Buddhists in the U.S. and Asia, it is an EXTEMELY demanding and exacting system of spirituality, and some Buddhists do believe in a God, or at least have a system of reverence for a system of spirituality and a belief that those who achieve a state of Nirvana survive in another form (devas) and deserve reverence, and the conception of an omnipresent omniscient eternal Buddha If that's not religion, it's close enough for government work. Certainly, one can pursue small-b buddhism as a not-too-taxing meditative system or philosophy of life (most college sophomores who are trying to impress co-eds with the claim that they are "spiritual, but not religious" do so), but that's not the way millions of Buddhists around the world see it. "In response to your passionate rejection of the some methods that might be used to achieve the goals of eugenics, I had asked if you support socialized medicine. And you responded, "Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?" To which I replied in the affirmative: "An answer to that question would be OK, especially if you explain how the groups are defined and how much of a share. Or it could include government paying the cost...it doesn't have to be a government doctor or clinic." And then from you...nothing." It's kind of hard to answer a very nebulous question, and I sense you don't want to commit to a specific question... When I asked you to try to focus in on a question, you again say you want an answer, but also want to ME to then explain how the groups would be defined and how much of a share, or if it "could include government paying the cost, but it doesn't to be a government doctor or clinic...then you seem upset that I can't answer such a question without a tad more specificity as to WHAT THE **** YOU ARE ASKING?!? So, I would say that the original goals of the social security system in this country would seem very laudable (care of widows, orphans, the aged and infirm, as administered by the government), but the growth of a bureaucracy and the desire by some to exploit the system have had a negative impact. I would support the general principle of subsidiarity in providing for those need it. I would oppose programs that are designed with the goal of killing members of populations based on their race, utility, or disability. I agree with Dr. Seuss that a person is a person, no matter how small. Is that what you are looking for? (This message has been edited by AZMike)

Blasphemy laws are inherently a religious act, since you need to set a religious standard for prosecution. No more so than "Hate speech laws," yes? You can recognize that some speech is offensive to others without holding to the tenets of that or any religion. I personally don't agree with blasphemy laws as an American. "What's that got to do with my statement about losing special privileges?" I don't think constitutional rights (in the U.S., at least) constitute "special privileges." "What do you think about US states that say atheists can't hold public office, or Indonesia imprisoning people for stating they're atheists?" Which U.S. states have laws against atheists holding public office? I'm not a Muslim nor an Indonesian, so it doesn't really affect me. I would disagree if the U.S. imprisoned atheists just for being atheists. "AZMike, Merlyn is not a member of BSA so I'm not sure how he could answer your challenge. But that question has been discussed at length in these forums before. You might as well aim the challenge at BSA itself because they seem to 'wink' at Buddhist (for example) memberships. I can't remember if or how a Buddhist responded in the past though." Gotcha. Are you a member of the BSA, though? Could you direct me to some of those threads? Per the WOSM, Buddhism is a religion: A One of the three main principles of Scouting is "Duty to God". However, the word "God" can mean different things and nobody has the right to impose his or her concept of God on other people. For example, it is true, as you say, that Buddhists do not share the concept of a "personal" God like Christian, Muslim or Jewish people. Does this mean that Buddhist people are atheists? The concept of atheism is very tricky. Let me give you an example - a Hindu mystic, Swami Vivekananda, said: "In the same way that certain religions in the world call a man who does not believe in a God existing outside his person an atheist, we, for our part, say that an atheist is a man who does not believe in himself. Not believing in the splendor of one's own soul that's what we call atheism." In the constitution of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, you can find the following definition of "Duty to God": "Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom." There are three parts in this definition: (1) adherence to spiritual principles, (2) loyalty to the religion that expresses them and (3) acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom. I think that any believer, including Buddhists, can agree on this definition The Scout Approach The role of the Scout leader relating to spiritual development is not to give religious instruction, nor to tack religious observances onto Scout activities. It is to use the kind of experiences offered by Scouting to help young people discover a spiritual reality and incorporate it into their own lives. In fact, Scouting proposes a 5-step approach to spiritual development. 1. Enable young people to experience spirituality through Scout activities In many cultures, the term "God" designates, on the one hand, the Creator or source of everything and, on the other hand, absolute goodness or a principle of salvation which pervades the history of humanity. There are thus two possible ways of discovering God: by exploring the wonders of creation and nature; by experiencing life within a human community. Traditional Scout activities do indeed permit these types of experiences: - Hiking, exploring, camping and actions to preserve the environment all enable young people to discover and admire the wonders of nature and life itself. - Welcoming, learning to listen, building relationships with other people, however poor or destitute, showing compassion, sharing; co-operating within a team, sharing responsibilities, serving others, etc. All these are activities which aim at discovering and developing a human community. 2. Making time for young people to discover and express the meaning of life A Scout leader also needs to propose opportunities for evaluating and celebrating experiences, in other words, to provide activities which enable young people to analyse their own experiences in the light of the Scout Law and Promise, in order to discover their meaning and value. It is through these kinds of activities, which include moments of silence, meditation and expression, that young people can experience the need to pray and worship. 3. Help each individual to identify with his or her spiritual and religious heritage A major concern is how to help each young person make links between the experiences gained within Scouting and the spiritual and religious heritage which has been transmitted to him or her by the family and local community. With the onset of adolescence, it is normal for a young person to challenge this heritage, question its relevance and have doubts. It is necessary to pass through this stage in order to truly adopt this heritage and develop an adult approach to spirituality, religion and faith. 4. Encourage internalization and personal commitment Spiritual development only has any sense if it becomes internalized and leads to personal commitment. This is why one of the essential criteria for progression is the application of acquired spiritual and religious values in daily life. 5. Develop open and respectful attitudes One of the fundamental convictions of the Scout Movement is that spiritual development should bring people together in fellowship, instead of separating them or bringing them into conflict. Since modern societies are those which thrive on communication and exchange and comprise a multiplicity of cultures and faiths, it is essential to prepare young people for such diversity. They need to overcome prejudices and develop open-mindedness and respect for faiths which are different from their own, whilst being able to express their personal convictions without aggressiveness. "I'd still like to hear your answer to the question I asked a while back." About welfare? Can I ask what prompts your inquiry?