Merlyn_LeRoy

Hey fred, you still badmouthing atheists? By the way, I posted the original link, so my appearance shouldn't be a surprise. Also, you aren't using the term "trolling" correctly. I don't, but the court does. Deciding exactly what does and does not apply in a particular situation is what they do for a living, after all. There are people who sincerely believe that their god made blacks as inferior humans, or meant to keep the races separate. Why didn't you complain about the CA court barring KKK membership a year ago when you were discussing this when the courts were asking for public comments on this change? ​ Oh, I don't like their expression, but what I really didn't like is the fact that the BSA dishonestly got government entitites like public schools to unlawfully charter their private, discriminatory groups. After I helped ax those, I haven't commented as much, because now the BSA is mostly just another bigoted group, instead of one actively inducing my own government to discriminate against atheists.

Doesn't the above mean that the youth MUST follow the religion of his parents? "Your family and religious leaders teach you about God...You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings". What if, say, he's become a Christian and his Jewish parents strongly object? He isn't following the wisdom of his parents' teachings.

Looks like the BSA's defense in barring gays has come home to roost: ... Yet in a five-page letter to the court, Angela Bradstreet, president of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco, cited a January 2001 report by the Judicial Council that said that "significant numbers of gay men and lesbians have experienced discriminatory comments or actions in the court system." "We believe that, in light of the statements made by the BSA national leadership in recent litigation that gay men and lesbians are 'unclean,' 'immoral,' and subject to exclusion solely by reason of their sexual orientation, it is important to the Bench, to its members, and to the public it serves that its commitment to fairness, impartiality and respect be reaffirmed." ...

There's still a blanket exception for religions. That's what it was when the exception for the BSA was added. I didn't hear you complaining about that.

"Before a judge joins a group must membership be pre-approved by a judicial committee?" It looks to me like they just can't join a group that practices "invidious discrimination".

The military exemption is gone because it's no longer needed after the ban on gays was lifted. When I brought this up back when the BSA exemption was created, I pointed out that people didn't seem to care that CA judges couldn't join e.g. the KKK.

http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/C...ay-6036874.php The state Supreme Court has voted to prohibit judges in California from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the 2.7 million-member youth organization bars gays and lesbians from becoming troop leaders. The court announced Friday that its seven justices had voted unanimously to accept a February 2014 recommendation from its ethics advisory committee to ban Boy Scout membership. As of Wednesday, judges affiliated with the Scouts were in violation of the state Code of Judicial Ethics, which the court oversees, and could face removal from office. ... [basically, they removed the exemption for youth groups that was inserted a few years ago just for the BSA] Here's the code with changes in strikeout, the BSA changes start on page 12: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

It's been about two years, and even though it would seem to violate WOSM's requirements, I haven't found any reaction to the UK officially allowing atheist members.

Some other tidbits about Indonesia -- it has the largest WOSM Scouting organization in the world, because it's part of the government school system and all students join. It's also illegal to be an atheist in Indonesia (as shown by Alexander Aan). So I guess WOSM is OK with such a lack of religious freedom.

Packsaddle, Duke U. does WAY more for Christians and Jews (see my earlier post). Allowing Muslims to announce their services would be reducing the existing double standard, and cancelling it only increases it.

Speaking of ostriches, what "double standard" were you referring to, JoeBob?

How is it a "double standard"? http://chapel.duke.edu/worship/music/carillon In the tower of Duke Chapel is a 50-bell carillon, played on weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and before and after Sunday worship services and special events. ... An entire Jewish Studies program: http://jewishstudies.duke.edu So what's the "double standard"?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html March 4, 1825 -- John Q. Adams First president sworn in wearing long trousers. Previous inaugurals were pants-optional.

"Well, the Bill of Rights only deals with the US government not establishing a national religion through an enactment by Congress." Well, no. Not according to the supreme court. And I live in the real world where that makes a difference, even if I think some of their opinions are wrong. "So why is it that people can't wrap their minds around the fact that the US Government's efforts surround themselves around atheism and the fact that in order to adhere to the Constitution as it is now defined, the US is a god-less nation." Because your paranoid fantasy doesn't match reality. "One nation under God, and in God we trust are now meaningless." So you won't mind if they're removed, right? "Oh, by the way, "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution" Other phrases not in the constitution: "separation of powers" "right to a fair trial" "right to vote" Now you're just playing word games, which is utterly worthless. No court opinion depends on the phrase "separation of church and state" being in the constitution, because it isn't. However, they do depend on what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means, because that IS in the constitution.

Why would it matter to you, tahawk?

I didn't notice you citing ANY opinion, apart from your own. And what I pointed out was accurate -- the Army allows soldiers to designate themselves as "Humanist", so the Army will be required to serve them equally, and having chaplains for Christians but not Humanists isn't equal. I haven't been saying that. Can you read? What "false assertions of authority"? Who is being bullied? What are you babbling about? Do you think treating Humanists as having equal rights is somehow "bullying"??

Why so defensive, tahawk? Religions without a supreme being have been part of US jurisprudence for decades. Why should it even matter to you?

They'll have to be, though. The Army allows soldiers to put "Humanist" as their religious designation, and they are required to serve the needs of soldiers. Also, excluding a chaplain because of his religious views would be a religious test in violation of Article VI. And just last month in American Humanist Association v. United States, a federal court ruled that Humanist prisoners are to get the same treatment as religious prisoners in forming things like study groups (which, in the prison where the plaintiff resides, prisoners' religious meetings have fewer restrictions compared to other groups of prisoners).

SHH! You'll shatter illusions.