Merlyn_LeRoy

At last! It only took half a dozen tries, but Ed has finally put forth an argument. Which I will proceed to shoot down, of course, but what did you expect? The ACLU is dishonest. If they actually lived into the Madison blurb they posted on their web site they would be forcing the removal of Menorah's from government property instead of just forcing the removal of Nativity displays. I've told you this before Ed, but I know you can't learn things. The ACLU *DID* sue to remove *BOTH* nativity scenes *AND* menorahs. The *COURTS* decided that menorahs were not religious symbols. Never guess at anything I post, Merlyn. You have done this many times and to date you have been wrong every time. I *HAVE* to guess because you can't ARGUE properly. What, for example, did you mean by "Same reason" earlier? It can only mean one thing, but that one thing is complete and utter nonsense. And no, you didn't comment on the ACLU blurb; you said the ACLU was dishonest, but you did not comment on the blurb itself. So Ed, I've refuted your sole argument that you've put forth on the ACLU's dishonesty. In fact, I refuted it months back when you brought up the same erroneous claim. Now, so I don't "have to guess", can you explain what your "Same reason" reply meant? You don't want me to have to guess what you mean, so it's in your own interest to explain it. The only interpretation I can come up with is that you are saying the ACLU is dishonest for the same reason I gave for the BSA's dishonesty, that of issuing charters to gov't agencies, but you and I know that's nonsense. So in the interest of not being forced to guess, what did you mean by "Same reason"?

I knew it, Ed STILL can't offer a reason why the ACLU should get a Prevaricator's Knot. Ed, you still haven't offered a reason. You've copied and pasted (without indicating that you got it from the ACLU's website) a bit about Madison, and then baldly assert that the ACLU is dishonest. But you haven't stated any REASON. Do you consider the ACLU's description of Madison's views to be deliberate lies? I'm forced to guess, since you: 1) didn't bother to mention that the description of Madison WAS from the ACLU's website, and 2) didn't comment on it AT ALL Sorry Ed, what you do is described as a "word salad". You just toss words and phrases around, without even attempting to put forward a concept.

I knew it. Ed is incapable of carrying on an argument, even after being tediously guided right to what he needs to do to make one. Ed, why does the ACLU deserve a Prevaricator's Knot? You have yet to offer a coherent reason. If you want to discuss why public schools can't charter BSA units, start a new thread. This one is about your inability to offer even a shred of an argument to support your views.

No public school can legally charter a BSA unit that discriminates on the basis of religion, because public schools can't do that, even if the administration wants to discriminate. It isn't up to the school, since they cannot practice religious discrimination.

OK, bringing this into its own thread... In the "knots" thread, I suggested this: Be sure and send a Prevaricator's Knot to all the BSA officials who issued charters to government agencies post-Dale, onehouraweekmy. In response, Ed wrote: And don't forget to send one of those Prevaricator's Knot to the ACLU! Now, since Ed didn't indicate why the ACLU deserved a Prevaricator's Knot, I asked him: For what, Ed? I said why the BSA should get one; why should the ACLU? Ed nonsensically replied: Same reason, Merlyn. So I asked if Ed even realized what he was saying: So Ed, you think the *ACLU* is dishonest because the BSA issued charters to government agencies after the Dale decision? And now Ed writes, with no other clarification: Didn't say that Merlyn. And now we're up to date, with new material by me. Sorry Ed, yes, you DID say that, when you said "same reason." I gave a reason why the BSA deserves a Prevaricator's Knot, and you said the ACLU deserved one for the "same reason." Since the reason I gave for the BSA is their issuing of charters to gov't agencies post-Dale, your reply means that the ACLU deserves one for the "same reason," which is complete nonsense. Now, if you'd like to try and present a coherent reason why the ACLU deserves one, instead of writing glib nonsense and simply denying that what you wrote somehow isn't what you meant, then state more clearly why you think the ACLU deserves a Prevaricator's Knot. Right now, all you've said is that they deserve one for the "same reason" as I gave for the BSA deserving one, which is for issuing charters to government agencies after the Dale decision. But you aren't really interested in an argument. I'd say you're not only not interested, but likely not capable. I suspect you'll just deny this, but still offer no real reasons or argument, just more of your nonsense babbling.

So Ed, you think the *ACLU* is dishonest because the BSA issued charters to government agencies after the Dale decision?

For what, Ed? I said why the BSA should get one; why should the ACLU?

Be sure and send a Prevaricator's Knot to all the BSA officials who issued charters to government agencies post-Dale, onehouraweekmy.

So what was your remark about litigation? Just more hot air in an attempt to paint people who oppose the BSA's policies as barratrous?

The official BSA position towards scouts is not more "nuanced", at least regarding atheists; they aren't allowed. And ASM915, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is; who, for example, would be threatening "litigation", and on what grounds? And how is it against BSA policy for an adult member to indicate that they won't rat out a gay or atheist scout? Is it BSA policy that all gay and atheist scouts be reported or something? Of course, if you're advocating that the BSA not only exclude gays and atheists, but also everyone who is against the current BSA policy and/or everyone who does not immediately report anyone suspected of being gay or atheist, I'm sure that'll really help membership numbers.

Who is lobbying for the religious definition(s) of marriage to change? The main debate is over civil marriage laws.

Maybe some people show up to mass in rainbow wigs because of Rollen Stewart wearing a rainbow wig and holding a sign reading "john 3:16" at sports events in the 70s & 80s.

Beavah, why do your examples only include ones with demonstrative harm. In particular, you cite gambling and losing way too much money. What if you knew someone who, say, played blackjack and was good enough to consistently win? Is it no longer a "sin" since they're winning? Is it only acceptable to berate other people for their harmful vices? Come to that, do you advocate digging into someone else's sex life, at least enough to determine if it's harmful (like gambling and losing too much money vs. gambling and NOT losing too much money) before criticizing them? Do you ask about what specific sex acts are performed, what preexisting diseases each has, and what, if any, precautions against disease are taken? I'm guessing not.

Ed, public schools shouldn't "celebrate" religious holidays. It isn't the function of public school officials to decide what religious holidays their students will or will not celebrate.

Here's an article on halloween & schools: http://www.reason.com/news/show/123222.html

skeptic, if blacks were shown to be more likely to steal than whites, would that justify addressing the possibility of theft by excluding all blacks? Plus, I don't think the BSA ever used molestation concerns in any of their legal arguments in excluding gays. If that's their main reason, they failed to even mention it in Dale.

Beavah writes: Still, I've always felt it to be a bit silly that as a man I couldn't lead a Venturing Crew with girls who are old enough to be my granddaughter, but Mrs. Beavah could lead that same crew with young, strappin' male teenagers. Where is this in BSA's rules? All I can find are the usual 2-deep leadership requirements.

onehouraweekmy, you'll have to point out where the "no gays" policy is written that everyone is supposed to know is there when they sign up. James Dale couldn't find it, I still can't find it in the BSA's membership forms. Oh, and fighting molestation by excluding gays is like fighting theft by excluding blacks.

Beavah writes: They did pretty good with the Boy Scouts Equal Access Act for schools, eh? How so? It outlawed what was already illegal (public schools can't refuse use of their facilities just because school officials don't like the group's message). It didn't do anything. It's like passing a law that says it's illegal to murder a boy scout -- it's something politicians can point to, to show they support the boy scouts, even though it's redundant.

Beavah writes, quoting Gern at first: If the Salvation Army or the Catholic charity restricted the beneficiaries of its service to a certain subset of society, would that make it similar to the BSA deal? Kinda like da Salvation Army making folks receivin' services attend a religious talk? Kinda like Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program including a Higher Power? The SA can't require attendance at a religious talk to receive benefits paid for by the government. There are lawsuits over their religious requirements for employees when government financing is involved: http://www.nyclu.org/node/1086 There have been a number of rulings that people can't be sentenced to AA or as a parole requirement due to their religious message.

erickelly65, what are the limits the GSUSA puts on male leadership? I know the GSUSA requires at least one leader to be a woman, but that's so girls will have a female role model.

Not only did the BSA change its rules on women leaders, they did it after winning court battles to keep them out, if I remember correctly.

OGE writes: Well now Brent, maybe we are being a little rough on the beavah. So how long have you been waiting to use that line, OGE? Or should I say, June Cleaver/Cleavah?

Which places, PeteM? Trevorum, not every buddhist is an atheist, from what I've read. But it's true that some are, and here's some interesting correspondence from someone on the buddhist committee on scouting: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scouting.issues/msg/15ed2e62c872ccad

erickelly65, I wouldn't say that ANY organization that requires a 'duty to god' would automatically be guilty of invidious discrimination. However, the BSA has held itself out as being an organization for "all boys", had public schools chartering units (25% of cub scout packs in Texas were chartered by public schools years after the Dale decision), and the way the declaration of religious principle says that only theists can be the 'best kinds of citizens', along with a host of other details, I certainly consider the BSA's discrimination to be invidious. molscouter, I tend to call people liars when I consider them to be lying. When someone tries to TELL ME what I'M THINKING and GETS IT WRONG, I'm CERTAIN they're lying, and I will say so.