Merlyn_LeRoy

Eric, the difference between the BSA and the GSUSA is that the BSA requires members to promise to do their 'duty to god', while the GSUSA allows members to change the promise and omit the word 'god' and replace it with something else, which could be non-theistic like 'my conscience'.

How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? What do you think of how the GSUSA handles it? For that matter, some BSA units allow atheists -- they deliberately ignore the policy. It's hardly a question of how to do it when it's being done.

erickelly65 writes: So once again you are the master and measure of all. Quit whining. I'm stating my opinion. You don't like it? Fine. My response is NO, you have accused me of this so you show me were I have written anything disrespectful of atheists. Sure. How about "How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor." Also "The sad thing is that those screaming about the scouts stances on homosexuality and atheism don't give a rats-rear about the Scouting program, the benefits it brings to boys and our society as a whole. They only seek to progress their particular agenda and then move on to tilt at the next windmill they find."

erickelly65, I use the word "discriminate" to refer to, well, discrimination. I'm fully aware that there is legal and illegal discrimination. If I need to refer to legal or illegal discrimination specifically, I'll say so. I do consider the BSA's discrimination to be "bad", whether it's through, say, a private school (legal) or a public school (illegal). And if you don't want me to accuse you of whining, don't whine. And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part.

Hunt, yes, the supreme court reversed the NJ court 5-4, but that only shows that many people (including 4 supreme court justices and all of the NJ supreme court justices) considered the BSA to be a public accommodation, as did a lot of the public. And no, I didn't "know" the BSA was always a private organization, I considered it a public accommodation too, just like 4 supreme court justices. However, the BSA is now a private, discriminatory, religious group, and I see no reason to subsidise it with tax money. I don't consider the advantages it offers to straight, theist kids to justify ignoring the constitution and using government largess to support religious discrimination.

What I stated about WOSM is true; I did not say it was the only scouting organization. You can't seem to read very well.

Gold Winger writes: That simple fact that you continue to respond to my comments with " . . . but that ain't true!" is evidence that I'm on the mark. Uh, no. If you bothered to educate yourself about me by reading what I've written elsewhere in this forum, you'd find out that I was a cub scout and my mom was a den mother. But you don't care about being accurate. As for WOSM, they aren't the end-all, be-all of Scouting in the world I never said it was.

erickelly65 writes: You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK. Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination. I give up; why? That the BSA practices objectional discrimination is evident by people who object to it. To me, this defamation is oppresive_ Not to mention being mentioned in the same breath as the KKK (To me this is way oppressive) (and Im overstepping the bounds of reason to not think you have an axe to grind with religionplease) The BSA's lawyers have compared themselves to the KKK in the same sort of situations that I was referring to with my "invidious" quote - in their appeal of the Berkeley decision to allow the city to remove their free berths: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/11/BAGFIGLHQI1.DTL Lawyers for the Berkeley Sea Scouts and the city answered questions from the state Supreme Court on Tuesday about whether the city violated the group's constitutional rights by requiring it to not discriminate against gays and atheists in order to receive a city subsidy. The justices asked whether rescinding the group's four free berths at the Berkeley Marina after 60 years was punitive or a policy action. And they quizzed the Scouts' attorney how a ruling in their favor could affect other municipalities. Associate Justice Marvin Baxter asked the Scouts' attorney whether the Sea Scouts' logic would allow groups like the Ku Klux Klan to demand public funding. "It's unfortunate, but it's correct," answered Jonathan Gordon. Gordon argued that the city's refusal to give the Scouts a subsidy that it gives other nonprofit groups amounted to punishing the Scouts for expressing philosophical ideals. Outside the courtroom after the hearing, Berkeley's city attorney seized that statement to characterize the dispute. "If they win, the KKK gets subsidized by taxpayers," said Manuela Albuquerque. "If we win, they don't." Now, I was specifically replying to how Philadelphia probably doesn't have $1/year leases to other organizations that practice invidious discrimination like the BSA or the KKK. And above, the BSA's lawyers are saying that the KKK's situation would be the same as the BSA's and they both deserve public subsidies. Then you wrote And once again, treating the scouts the SAME as every other private organization results in whining from some BSA supporters. Here you state as fact that BSA supporters that think philly is giving the scouts a raw deal are Whining (You didnt state I think they are whiningyou stated they ARE whining without knowing for certain. I assume you base this on the belief that any view that might support the view the scouts are getting unfair treatment is patently ridiculous) (double standard oppression) You are incredulous when others might jump to such conclusions without mountains of hard facts and quotable references but you dont give anyone else one iota of the common respect you seem to demand. Hey, all I do is argue. I know people like you don't give atheists one iota of common respect. Now, what does the above quote have to do with "oppression" based on religion? Calling BSA supporters "whiners"? Sorry, that's free speech, something I support. I don't consider unfavorable opinions to be "oppression" -- that's just more whining. Here you wrote How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you. Sorry but this is just mean spirited, sarcastic and assuming you the first random clue about where Im coming from, what my real belief system is and why I support the Scouting program. (caustic, assumptive oppression) Its ok for you to jump to conclusions about others motives but we mere mortals best mind our Ps and Qs. Plus, MR CIVIL RIGHTS I find the phrase Thats might white of you patently racist and divisive. Same as above. Oh boo hoo, I'm being MEAN to you by using SARCASM like Dinsdale Piranha's brother Doug. Sorry, that STILL isn't oppression. Finally you wrote eolesen writes: I'll be praying for you, Merlyn. And I'll think for you, eolesen. I find this offensive. Oh, too damn bad. I and many atheists find "I'll be praying for you" to be offensive, and a lot of atheists respond as I did. And no, that STILL isn't "oppression". You dont need to agree, I could care less. The phrase is "I couldn't care less".

erickelly65 writes: I disagree.and as an aside; I believe the courts are mistaken in their current stance/interpretation of separation of church and state. I disagree with some parts of their current stance. you wrote The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. but you balked at my suggestion that the program allow any member but keep the same program (as being mighty white of me) so I assume you think that no religious group can be supported by the government even if it doesnt discriminate. Why should the government support a religious group? I have no interest in playing the you said X at HH:MMpm on October 23rd, 2007 game. It isn't a "game"; I reply to specific statements. A lot of people, including yourself, often talk in vague generalities, but don't spell out what you mean. You wrote "your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith," yet you haven't said what I've said that IS oppressive. If you would state what you were referring to, we could actually discuss it. But you don't seem interested in discussing things.

erickelly65 writes: Given my view of equal and fair neutral treatment by the government (which I know we dont see eye to eye on) I find your statement; I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support oppressive. It seeks to hold an organization to a different standard from others based on a religious belief. No, it doesn't. The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. And what did I say BEFORE that you found "oppressive"? I just said the above statement; what did I say that caused you to characterize my position as "oppressive"?

erickelly65 writes: I find your statements and general tone on faith and government to be hostile in a Prima facie way. So you should have no problem quoting me stating, well, SOMETHING that you can claim shows my "oppressive" attitude, right? So far, you're just making vague assertions. What, specifically, do I advocate that you consider "oppressive"? I can hardly defend my views if you don't at least tell me that. I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support.

By "them" I meant BSA units, Ed. Happy?

erickelly65 writes: It seems you and Merlyn believe (much taking the risk of being called a liar again...woe is me) that to be neutral means there is no place for religion in the public forum. Well, no (and since you said "It seems," you aren't lying, you're merely mistaken, and you haven't bothered to read what packsaddle and/or I have written elsewhere on this forum). To me (I won't speak for packsaddle, though I'd bet his views are similar), neutral means treating everyone equally, regardless of their religious views. I believe that neutral means there is room for ALL in the public forum (religions, belief systems, political and social groups, etc) and that the government becomes non-neutral when it givers greater access to one group to the detriment of others. Exactly. Like $1/year rent for a building (unless the city has enough buildings to rent to all comers at that rate. I'll take 10, by the way, and pay in advance for a decade. Cash). ... Merlyn, think what you will, I am not a liar. Yes, you are. Instead of asking my views, you stated what you thought were my views, and you got them wrong. You are factually wrong about what my views are, and you didn't make any attempt to ask me what they were beforehand. I find you to be openly hostile to religion (my opinion and sorry if thats not the case) and your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith (all faiths). Well, here's where you can actually contribute by quoting something I've written that you consider "oppressive". I've written a fair amount, so I would hope you can quote something I've written to support your opinion. I have made gestures that keeping governments role in scouting distant, as you would like, might be the best alternative we can arrive at in today's society only to be sarcastically dismissed by you with a few pejorative phrases thrown in for good measure. Because I don't consider your gestures to be terribly magnanimous. Atheists can join, as long as they lie and pretend to believe. Oh, how nice. It's like a Restricted club member saying it's OK with him if Jews join the club, as long as they pretend to be Christians and don't to anything to indicate they're Jewish, like refuse to eat cheeseburgers at the club's Cheeseburger Thursday cookouts. You have no interest in having an open, interactive and intelligent discussion on the views and perceptions of various people on this topic. Yes, I do. I argue my position very forcefully, and I'm not afraid to call people liars if I consider them to be lying. Anything short of complete capitulation to your line of thinking gets attacked and vilified. You're the one who said "the gloves are off". Projection much? Look, I'll argue based on my opinion, and you argue based on your opinion. You just don't seem to like my style. Oh well. By the way, as far as complete capitulation, do you agree I was right in what I said about WOSM membership?

I don't agree that the BSA was always a private organization; not with public schools running them. And the NJ supreme court had no problem judging the BSA to be a public accommodation. And from what I understand, the BSA built the building and deeded it to the city as part of the original agreement that allowed them to build it on public land. From that point on it was the city's property, so $1/year is a subsidy.

No they aren't, Ed. They're based on what erickelly65 wrote. His statements on what I "think" are based on nothing I've written, and contradict some of what I HAVE written. Now, it's possible I've misinterpreted what erickelly65 has written, but his assertions that I "want a state who's religion IS atheism" is based on nothing I've written, it's just complete crap he's made up and falsely ascribed to me. I written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters.

erickelly65 writes: To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's what WOSM says, argue with them: http://www.scout.org/en/our_organisation/governance/world_conference National Scout Organizations must gain recognition from the World Scout Conference to become members of WOSM- and there can only be one NSO per country. In the case of a country having more than one Scout Association, a federation is formed for the purposes of national coordination and world membership. Atheists (or any other group) could form a similar organization, but in order to join WOSM, they'd have to be in an umbrella organization that includes the BSA. ... My only test would be that these groups aren't promoting hate or violence against others. That's one of the problems of using subjective criteria like that. The BSA is on record in court as says gays aren't "clean" and "morally straight", and that atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. I'd say that qualifies as promoting hate. You want a state who's religion IS atheism and all the rest of us have to hide our beliefs, with your ilk there is no place for faith in the public square. Well, now you're lying. Got that? You're lying. You aren't voicing your opinion, you are lying by misrepresenting my opinion and pretending that you can read my mind, instead of what I have plainly written in this forum. I've gone through this before with people deliberately misrepresenting my views and resorting to lying about my position. If you don't know my opinion on a subject (and you clearly don't), you need to ask me, and I'll tell you, and even explain my position. But right now, you're just making up a position and telling me I hold it, which is false. In short, you're lying. As for your comment "That's mighty white of you.", in short its hugely inappropriate in this forum. I think it's entirely appropriate. I don't subscribe to your "Litmus Test" that a group with ANY religious belief shouldn't be chartered by a public school. Fortunately, the courts agree with me. Public schools can't apply religious tests to participate in any service offered by that public school. All I am saying is I disagree and view any interference by outside groups (governmental or other) as an invasion of my freedom of religion and association. So, you agree with Philadelphia's actions? They USED to interfere by giving the BSA a public subsidy; now they're treating them the same as any other private organization. End of interference.

Hunt writes: It may have been within its rights under the terms of the lease to do so, but it's obviously contrary to the idea of the lease. I disagree. "In perpetuity" in a lease simply means it doesn't lapse and need to be renewed every year. Such leases have other ways to end since they never expire otherwise. If they didn't "intend" for the lease to be terminated by the city deciding to end it, they could have written the lease so it couldn't be terminated that way. But they did, so they obviously intended that the lease could end if the city decided to end the lease. But it takes a very narrow viewpoint to think that BSA suddenly went from being a beneficial service organization that helped the city so much that it deserved a no-rent lease to being no different from any commercial entity that might want to lease city property. I think all it takes is a clear viewpoint. The BSA went to a lot of trouble to define itself as a private, discriminatory, religious organization, instead of what many people assumed it to be - a public accommodation. The city found itself suddenly subsidising a private, religious organization that discriminated. And the lease gives them a year's notice, plus this issue goes back about 4 years, so the CoL council has had plenty of warning.

Gold Winger, you haven't "explained" my motivation, you don't even know me. You've just made up stuff out of your own imagination, because you have no real arguments.

Well Brent, you answered according to erroneous assumptions you made, but again you're refusing to answer my question after I clarified it. Can a public school run baseball teams that don't wear uniforms, don't play other schools, don't meet during school hours, and don't allow Jews?

Well Gold Winger, you seem to be a prime example of the direction the BSA is going; whine about losing special privileges, and resort to namecalling against people who actually do something to remove those special privileges, instead of trying to defend those (rather indefensible) special privileges. Which helps explain why you're reduced to mere namecalling. VinceC, sure, the government discriminates in all kinds of ways, some of which I agree with, and some I don't. However, all (or at least most) of those cases are perfectly legal, regardless of what any of us think of the wisdom of them. If you think some of them are unlawful, you can actually get off your duff and do something about it, too. In contrast, the government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion by the constitution. Public schools can't discriminate on the basis of religion. And I actually did something about it.

And by the way Brent, you still haven't answered if you think public schools can have baseball teams that exclude Jews. You have no problem repeatedly asserting that public schools can run clubs that exclude atheists, so presumably they could also run clubs that exclude Jews, right? Right?

BrentAllen writes: Schools CAN NOT discriminate against FCA clubs, per the Equal Access Act. And nobody has said they can, or do, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. I did comment on how public schools don't "own and run" FCA clubs as they did cub scout packs, and eolesen gave some vague information on how his school somehow thought they were "evil" without going into any detail, but that's about it. I don't know what kind of school baseball team you were on, but I've never heard of one like that. Who did you play, if you didn't play other schools? We played each other. You know, a bunch of kids getting together to play baseball? For fun?

eolesen writes: I'll be praying for you, Merlyn. And I'll think for you, eolesen.

eolesen writes: And all this time I assumed that Merlyn was someone who was trying to effect change from within... I might have been able to back when I was a cub scout at about age 10, but since I was an atheist and my mom, who was a den mother, was also an atheist, it was before the BSA started kicking out atheists as policy. Since the BSA doesn't admit atheists, I can't effect change from within now. Since he's clearly out to remove one of the core principles of Scouting, I don't see any value in debating issues with him any further. If it's a "core principle", how come closeted atheists are in the BSA? How come some areas allow overt atheists? If it was a "core principle", it shouldn't function if it's missing. How come some countries allow atheists in scouting, and have godless promises? Where I see hypocracy in that my son's HS doesn't think twice about allowing the "Rainbow Club" (comprised of gay/lesbian/transgender leaning minors and their friends, led by school staffers, and given full access to student activity funds) to exist and promote itself, but organizations like Fellowship of Christian Atheletes and Scouts are seen as evil because their association is based entirely or in part on a belief in God. FCA and scouts discriminate on the basis of religion, which public schools can't do. I'm willing to bet anyone can join the Rainbow Club. And in what way are they "seen as evil"? Does your public school state that FCA members and scouts can't be the best kinds of citizens?

Gold Winger writes: Looks like I struck a nerve. Your attempts to justify your actions sound far too much like "My mom didn't have anything to do with it!" Are you going to stop with the personal attacks? I guess not, since you have nothing of value to add.