Merlyn_LeRoy

Why wouldn't it work? It works for the GSUSA. In my opinion, the BSA denegrates atheists; one example is the DRP, which says only theist members can be the best kinds of citizens.

I'm the co-webmaster: http://www.firesigntheatre.com/aboutus.html

I think it was someone in this forum who pointed out a while back that, when you have an organization where volunteers are expected to enforce the rules, people tend to not enforce rules if they don't like them and can't change them. That's not specific to the BSA, that's how people act. That's what jury nullification is, for example. Some juries will react to draconian laws by refusing to render a guilty verdict, even if the evidence is overwhelming, because they disagree so strongly with the law as written. So you end up with some people enforcing the rules, some ignoring them, and some leaving. What nobody should be is surprised.

erickelly65 writes: Meryln, first lets keep, if only for this thread, the issue of governmental involvement/support out of this. You brought up being subject to "legal attack". Nearly all lawsuits concerning the BSA and their discriminatory policies involve the government in some way. I am promoting the notion that a belief in a higher power is an important element for my son to learn and embrace. What your saying,if I understand you correctly, is that its ok for me to be "criticized", "ostricized", and "harassed" because I want him in a program that supports that notion. In the specific case of the BSA, they denegrate atheists. And yes, I will also mention the government when the BSA uses tax money to support their private club that excludes atheists. The freemasons exclude atheists, but they aren't subject to legal attacks that I've heard of over their exclusion of atheists, because they actually act like a private organization.

Same reason, Ed.

You can join a group that excludes Jews if you like, but you might catch some social flak for that, too. A lot of people consider the BSA's discrimination to be morally wrong, and in cases where it involves the government, legally wrong. Of course there will be public criticism and a few lawsuits.

No Ed, you don't answer my questions, so why should I answer yours? Of course I know you'll just make up your own answers, but you always do.

I'll start answering your questions when you answer mine, Ed.

Point is they don't have to hijack our program and then strip it of what is important to us until I feel out of place. I think both sides can say this.

Well, obviously a lot of you feel free to insult me while telling me not to insult others.

CA_Scouter writes: Believe you me, I WAS being curteous and kind. I don't think you were. However, this is a matter of opinion. You use a double standard: 1) when you criticize someone, you can say whatever you want, you call 'em as you see 'em 2) if someone criticizes you, they are hypocritical and insulting I don't use a double standard; we disagree on what is and isn't insulting and what is and isn't hypocritical.

Ed, a liar does not lie all the time. That's a ridiculous assertion. CA_Scouter, I call 'em as I see 'em. Yes, you can be hypocritical and tell me to be courteous and kind while simultaneously saying I come across as a hothead, I get all huffy, and that I cannot fathom that I could do anything wrong at all. eolesen, I haven't brought the first amendment into this, and in a past thread I've pointed out that the first amendment doesn't apply to a private forum like scouter.com.

Snopes says false: www.snopes.com/politics/military/starbucks.asp

Well, I can't re-edit what I wrote because I get a syntax error, but I swapped the clauses on my response to Ed. It should read: Is Ed's dodge of saying I'm a stater of "mis-truths" but not calling me a liar a violation of the rules?

CA_Scouter, this IS about decorum. If I'm in an argument, and I think someone is lying, I SAY so, and I tell them why. That's all part of a proper argument. If someone says something, and I think they're lying, but I can't SAY I think they're lying, then what? Bring back "inoperative statements" as euphemisms for lies? I say explitive deleted to that. As I've said before, some statements are both true and insulting; does this mean some true statements cannot be made in conducting an argument here? And I started this thread, don't I get a say in what is and isn't out of bounds for it?

Well Ed, that's a pretty fine hair to split -- you WILL say I have made "mis-truths", but you WON'T say I'm a liar. Wow, what integrity (what integrity?) I have very seldom called someone a liar in this forum; the only times I can recall are when someone had the audacity to tell me what I would do, or what I thought, and they got it wrong, and they had not merely misinterpreted something I had written. In cases like that, I can see no alternative but to conclude they made up my position out of whole cloth, and decided their made-up scenario was the actual case, instead of asking me first, and their statements were made without any disclaimers like "it appears you think XXX" or "you would probably do XXX". In such cases, I point out that they are lying. "lying" is another example of something that could be both true and insulting. Is it against the rules to state that someone is a liar? Is Ed's dodge of saying I'm lying but not calling me a stater of "mis-truths" a violation of the rules? Now, if this were a real argument, I'd ask Ed to substantiate his statements. But it doesn't look like people want real arguments, they want typing. And no fair hurting someone's feelings! Now, go out there and kick out some gays.

But eolesen, that's what I'm asking about in this thread. What if a statement "X" is both true, and insulting? Are people prohibited from making true statements if it might hurt someone's feelings? What if statement "X" is both true, insulting, but needed to advance the argument? Can I point out to Ed that he's wrong, and the ACLU has sued to remove menorahs? Can I point out that I have told him this before, and he persists in saying the ACLU does not sue to remove menorahs? Can I say that what he's saying is false? Can I say he has been told this before, and he cannot apparently learn this simple fact? Can I say that he either can't learn this, or he HAS learned this and is now intentionally lying about the ACLU? Sometimes statements which are pertinent to the argument might be taken as insulting, but does that mean such statements are simply not to be made? Is it a violation of the rules to quote court decisions where the BSA describes gays as not being "clean"? Are people who are in favor of the BSA's gay policy not supposed to say that their religion teaches that homosexuals are sinners? Is gonzo1 in violation of these rules for saying I was a cub scout "fraudulently"? Oh, but *I* get dinged for tell Ed over and over that he can't learn what I've told him over and over. No, that's beyond the pale.

But there isn't much of an argument going on when the same fallacies are brought up over & over. If someone thought the BSA started in the 1950s, even after being corrected numerous times, you can't really have a discussion about the early years of the BSA with him until he learns when the BSA was founded. And if he can't learn...

People have criticized me for telling Ed that he can't learn things. But isn't that a simple statement of fact when Ed says the ACLU doesn't try to get menorahs removed, I and others tell him that the ACLU did try to get menorahs removed and cite Allegheny v ACLU, then some months later Ed says the same thing, he's told the same thing AND told that he's been told before, then some months later he AGAIN says the same thing? At what point is it acceptable to say that Ed can't learn that the ACLU brought a lawsuit against a menorah, and the courts ruled against them? Is there a magic number of X repetitions where it finally becomes acceptable to state that Ed can't learn at least that much? He even said in 2003 that he lives in Allegheny County and remembers the case well! Now, Gonzo1 says he refuses to debate with me, but that doesn't stop him from disparaging my honesty. Oh well, I've explained before how when I joined cub scouts, I was an atheist, I omitted god from the promise, and either nobody cared or nobody noticed. Certainly nothing indicated to me that atheists couldn't join, and this was before 1985, when the BSA kicked out Paul Trout for not believing in a "supreme being" -- then READMITTED him and awarded him Life Scout after the public outcry. So it isn't clear if the BSA excluded atheists prior to 1985.

eolesen writes: This may be a silly question, but for the units I've been involved with, the CO provides nothing aside from a place to meet. There's no money changing hands. So, how are taxpayer funds being used illegally? Using that logic, a public school could have a whites-only club as long as no money was spent. Religious discrimination is, itself, unlawful for a public school. It doesn't matter if the discrimination is "free".

Ed writes: I have already answered your question, Merlyn. I must have missed your answer, Ed. Instead of taking the time to type that you've already answered, why not just re-type your actual answer? That way I won't have to "guess" at what you mean. So Ed, what did you mean when you said "Same reason" earlier? I'll return the favor in advance by telling you an ACLU menorah case that I've told you before: Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) See? Instead of just telling you that I already told you, I *told* you again, so you now have that information. So could you tell me what you meant by "Same reason" earlier? If you explained already, I missed it, so please repost your explanation.

The insults are free; I am attempting to get a genuine discussion going. Ed, I'm still interested in knowing what you meant by "Same reason" earlier.

No, they're merely insults; to be an ad hominem, I would need to say Ed is wrong *because* he can't learn, etc. I haven't done that.

And again I ask you Ed, what did you mean by "Same reason" earlier? Please answer this question.

Ed, the ACLU *DID* try to get menorahs removed. Yet you keep trying to put forth the same false argument that the ACLU hasn't done anything. They DID. The courts ruled against them. And no, you can't argue. "You've refuted nothing, Merlyn. Ask any Jew. A Menorah is a Jewish religious symbol." Sorry, I *DID* refute you. You claimed the ACLU was ignoring menorahs; I pointed out they DID try to have them removed, but the courts ruled they weren't religious symbols. I think menorahs ARE religious symbols, but the idiotic supreme court ruled otherwise. But what I refuted, specifically, was your claim that the ACLU went after nativity scenes but not menorahs. They went after both. The court said menorahs weren't religious symbols. Yes, it's a crock, but you need to blame the supreme court for that, not the ACLU.