Merlyn_LeRoy

Da problem with legal arguments is that they're adversarial, disputatious, and technical. Not da best for engenderin' a civil society. So what IS "the best"? Perhaps good tactics, but bad strategy for the atheist crowd. If yeh tick off da majority for long enough, the laws change. Interestin' guys get elected, courts get stacked, Constitutional respect gets eroded. Ah, so a society that does not respect constitutional rights because atheists "ticked off" people is somehow an improvement? Is that what you're saying? Or should atheists not fight for their constitutional rights? I think you know I'm not the type to kowtow to people who would infringe on my rights. Here in workin' with kids, I'm more interested in the ethical argument, or the ethical position on the matter, eh? Your position appears to be that any public informational message requires all messages to be accepted, as far as I can tell. Does this mean a city sign saying "Elm Street" requires that the city permit another sign nearby erected by Fred Phelps saying "god hates fags"? If not, what distinguishes your argument about the park exhibit from my example? To keep the analogy close, assume the Elm Street sign was also OK'd and created as an eagle scout project by a member of the Phelps clan.

Beavah writes: I think yeh should give it another go, or poor Merlyn is goin' to be left all alone with his notion that a theory and a law are functionally the same thing, They are. There's no hard and fast line between a theory and a law. Scientists refer to Newton's theory of gravity or his law of gravity. or that it ain't possible to falsify a (scientific) theory. I gave an EXAMPLE of a scientific theory being falsified; how do you get "it isn't possible to falsify a scientific theory" out of that?? Theories aren't ever PROVEN. They can be falsified, as Newton's theory of gravity has been. Newton's theory isn't correct, but it's close enough to be useful. It's a slightly incorrect scientific theory. Even in Newton's time, stating that the acceleration of a falling body at the earth's surface due to gravity is 32 ft/sec^2 isn't accurate, because as the falling body gets closer, the acceleration increases by a tiny amount because it's now closer to the earth's center of mass, and lifting it up higher reduces it slightly. But for experiments on the earth's surface, it's normally just used as a constant acceleration, even though everyone (including Newton) knows that it isn't constant.

Well Beavah, you can try to argue that allowing any view of any kind on public property requires all views to be allowed, but I don't think that would last. I think a city can create an informational exhibit without creating an open public forum.

FireKat writes: Merlyn_LeRoy stated "Theories are never proven true; they can only be shown to be false (or incomplete)" I beg to differ with you. You CANNOT prove a negative or that something does not exist. How does that even relate to what I wrote? And also: "There is no difference between a law and a theory in science". Please get a refresher in science before you make those statements as they are not part of science. So refresh me on the difference between Newton's law of gravity and his theory of gravity.

Theories are never proven true; they can only be shown to be false (or incomplete). "Newton's laws of motion" are still a theory. There is no difference between a law and a theory in science, though law is usually used for a simple or elegant or broadly applicable or famous theory. It's doubly absurd to say that Newton's laws of motion have been proven, since they are wrong. They do not accurately describe motion involving large masses or speeds near C (see Mercury's orbit). Newton's laws are still useful, though. Most NASA calculations just use Newton's laws from what I've heard. A theory is falsifiable if part of the theory could be shown to be incorrect via an observation or an experiment. Mercury's orbit is observed to not be correctly predicted by Newton's laws.

Beavah writes, first quoting Trevorum: Arguably, it has no legitimate place in an astronomy exhibit - unless of course your objective is to promote your own religious POV (ie., the J-C-I God as the creator of those planets). Oh, pishtosh. I utterly reject this silly notion of public censorship of ideas. It is but one step removed from those who use the government to burn books because they don't like the ideas presented in da books. "You can have your books and your quotes, but keep 'em on private property, and out of the public consciousness." Balderdash. Beavah, the "public censorship of ideas" includes cases where only some people are allowed to present their ideas. The park is not, apparently, a public forum where anyone and everyone can install rocks with their ideas on them. If it was, then it would be fine. Newton's laws of motion would be appropriate, but Newton's religious ideas aren't related to the solar system, and quoting him on religion is no more relevant than a quote from astronomer Carl Sagan on his views of religion, even though both can be quoted regarding planets. No, the public park is not your private forum.

But 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111 is eight days. Better drop day 0, non-C programmers wouldn't want the first day to be zero anyway.

Any project using e.g. Wednesday would be considered infusing religion using that standard, Ed.

Because the reason for removing it was not its "offensiveness", Ed. As the article quoted the complaint, it was "an infusion of religion into an educational display on public park property." You and George Griesinger are trying to portray it as due to offensiveness, but that isn't the reason it's a problem. The Griesingers can put the same rock on their own lawn, and it would have about the same "offensiveness" factor (minus whatever the difference would be on private vs. public property), but now it would be perfectly legal. Trans-thread PS to OGE: Yes, you got my position right in the now-closed thread.

Well, as long as we're posting things that we know will be deleted, (oh c'mon, yes this is what I get for taking the Holiday off, BTW, I will leave GW's post, not because I agree with it, but in memory of NJCubDad, who had an interesting take on leaving posts. OGE P>(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Ed lies: Nah! Merlyn would try to stop the singing of any song that has God in it! Ed, STOP LYING ABOUT ME. Got that? STOP LYING ABOUT ME. Gold Winger, atheists tend to win lawsuits on church & state issues. I don't think that makes atheists look like idiots or babies. In fact, I think the idiots are the ones who don't understand the first amendment.

They aren't representations of pagan gods, they're the English names of the planets (which were named after the pagan gods). You can lobby to have the names of the planets changed if you like, but "offensiveness" is not a constitutional violation.

I provided the link so anyone could read it. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

What rationale are you referring to, hops_scout? I've pointed out that some BSA members make racist remarks, and the silence of any sort of criticism is deafening.

hops_scout, I notice neither you nor any other BSA member bothered to even criticize the racist remarks of CalicoPenn and Gold Winger; as I say, it looks like racism is in fashion in the BSA. That doesn't mean it's an official policy, it means that "upstanding" members can make racist remarks and nobody will call them on it. Gold Winger isn't even trying to defend his stupidity, he's just trying to goad me instead of attempting to justify his racism.

Gold Winger, you're a good example of much of what's wrong with the BSA.

Hey, if it was the 1940's you guys could carp on how Japs look like monkeys with buck teeth. I guess given the BSA's "exclusivity", racism is in fashion again.

The MN ACLU is looking into it: http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumninquiresintonormanda.htm Got something against equal treatment, hops_scout?

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=83141 ... [Jonathan] Griesinger designed and installed a series of 10 stones along the trail through the Stenger Athletic Complex. The first represents the sun and the rest are engraved with the names of the nine planets. ... Griesinger also placed an 11th stone that he has been ordered to remove. The stone is engraved with a Bible verse that says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." ... Arvada owns the park, but city officials said the proposal they were given does not mention of the "God stone." ... Arvada officials asked the Griesingers to remove the stone with the reference to God, and the family complied. ...

Gold Winger writes: Just goes to show that atheists are spoilers. Like little children they cry out, "I don't want to play your game but I'll ruin it for you anyway." Just goes to show that atheists exercising their first amendment rights are considered to be ruining it for Gold Winger. Too damn bad for you, eh? http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/voices/20071202_Atheists_join_religions_in_holiday_display.html ... In a statement, Carol Aichele, chairman of the county commissioners, said, "The commissioners set the policy for winter holiday displays, giving all community groups an opportunity to erect a winter holiday display - as long as it doesn't cause anyone viewing the display to believe that the county endorses one particular religion. "The request from the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia is for a 'Tree of Knowledge' - a 20-foot tree that will display book covers. This organization applied for permission in the same way that other organizations did, and met all the design, safety and insurance requirements. It will be displayed along with the Christmas Tree, the Creche and the Menorah." ...

Uh, people have been on the north & south american continents for around 12,000 years, so it doesn't matter if christianity took hold or not, there were already people here long before then.

I'd like to see the writ of habeas corpus return, and for the US to live up to the Geneva convention and stop torturing people. But it's still a few days until the official Airing of Grievances...

I asked someone who says he was a past member of the same Sea Scouts ship with Evans about whether two-deep leadership was followed: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/insidebayarea/7649274/?src=hsn Farallon Old Timer yes you probably know me. Brian; Some Crusises might have a Mate or two to help out (a mate would be 18-21 and would have been on the ship during high school and graduated from the program). Work parties, practice, driving trips, Evans would be the only adult 90% of the time. Parents were not invited. I would have had a very hard time believing this but that one of my life long friends on the ship told me about it 25 years later. He and several others had been molested to some degree. He had no reason to come up with this and he had nothing to gain hes moved on and will never have anything to do with Evans.

Beavah writes: it seems clear from da press statements and search warrants that the abuse occurred after meetings were over and at other non-sea-scouting venues. Doesn't seem clear to me. No point in molesting on a Sea Scout trip with other adults around From what I've read, there often were NO other adults around on trips.

The chartering Org. for the Berkeley Sea Scouts is listed on the BSA website as "Sea Explorer Ship Farallon Inc"; looks like a self- or council-sponsored unit.