Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, you certainly are disparaging atheists, your whining denials notwithstanding. Calling someone who properly goes through legal channels as using "terrorist tactics" also means you hate the US legal system for some reason.

No, I'll argue in public or not at all. If you don't have the courage to argue your beliefs in public, I see no reason to argue privately.

Gonzo1 writes: I had almost forgotten what it was like to have EVERY sentence and phrase dissected with scalpel like precision. Well, if nearly every sentence you write contains something that needs a reply, I think it's a good method to clearly lay out where disagreements lie. This is why I ask people to be specific in their arguments instead of being vague. Now, if you don't like that, I can just say I disagree with some of your positions vis-a-vis religion & public schools, and I still don't know what you were referring to regarding Russia letting god into their schools. That's another case where being specific would help clarify things. The only recent news I'm aware of in connection with Russian schools and religion is the Russian Orthodox Church attempts to have schools teach their religious tenets. Your view that town officials should be able to promote their religion at public expense is not what I would call religious freedom; I would call it religious oppression. No, "look away" does not remove the problem of public officials abusing their authority to promote their religion. By the way, I'd be opposed to a town erecting something like a sign saying "gods are myths", too. Religious freedom and all that. Newdow's "under god" cases are based on a parent's right to teach their own children regarding religion -- when public schools have their children parrot "under god" every morning for years, the state is instilling a message that the parent may not agree with, and which conflicts with the religious message that parent wants to instill in their own child. Offensiveness has nothing to do with it. The cross removal is another case of the state promoting religion. Again, offensiveness has nothing to do with the lawsuit. And your offense is likewise no basis for a lawsuit. Go ahead and try to file a lawsuit saying you're merely offended by something and see how far you get. I AM for freedom of religion, I don't want Gainesville to promote Methodism over Judiaism (sp) or catholicism or atheism. Wait, are you saying Gainesville can erect a Christian cross or not? Isn't that promoting Christianity? Should Gainesville have the legal authority to erect a cross? A sign saying "Jesus is Lord"? A sign saying "Obey Pope Benedict"? You seem to be contradicting yourself; if towns can decide to put up symbols, who are you to limit it to a vague promotion of monotheism vs. Christianity vs. Catholicism? I'm wondering if the Merlyn of these last few posts is an imposter. Why? Because you improperly stated what my position was, and instead tried to demonize me as being against religious freedom? And when I shellacked you, and pointed out how your own views were anything but compatible with religious freedom? Merlyn, for further comments, send me a PM No. You insulted me in public, we'll debate in public.

Yes Ed, going through proper legal channels is not "terrorist tactics", no matter how much you try to disparage atheists. How nasty of them, following US law! Just more of your idiotic right-wing hysteria.

Yes Ed, I am. You, on the other hand, call atheists who follow the US legal system and try to get public schools to obey the law by exercising their right to a court hearing "terrorists".

Gonzo1 writes: The Merlyn I know who posts here does NOT believe in religious freedom, but rather religious prohibition. Well, that certainly isn't me. Religious freedom would mean that a Bible Club could meet at school and anyone (who meets membership requirements) could attend, the Ladie's Bridge Club could too. Even scouts could meet there, because you now claim to believe in religious freedom. I always have. And, if you'll bother to READ what I've written about scouts MEETING in public schools (as opposed to being CHARTERED by public schools), you'll see I've stated that they CAN, assuming the school is open to outside groups. I do not approve of government sanctioned religion. Then what did you mean when you wrote earlier in this thread: We win the Cold War and triumph over the Soviets, We kick God out of school, they put God in school. The above seems to be a reference to the Russian Orthodox Church's efforts to get state schools to promote their religion, and you seem to approve. My problem is when the school bends over backward to encourage these muslim kids to pray. I agree that schools shouldn't encourage kids to pray, whether by having moments of silence when they are "supposed" to pray (either in the morning, for Christians, which just happens to be when most schools conducted prayers illegally, or in the afternoon for Muslims, as Carver Elementary used to do). Nor do I think schoolteachers should tell students that a moment of silence is time for praying, as Croft says happened. Freedom of religion would mean that Skokie, IL ( a Jewish community) could put up a Menora or almost any town in the Bible Belt can put up a Nativity scene No, towns do not have first amendment rights; citizens have rights. Towns do NOT have a right to promote "their" religion. If a town has an open forum, CITIZENS can put up menorahs or nativity scenes, and anyone else can put up whatever they like. Equal freedom for all, right? If a TOWN decides what religious symbols are put up, and which ones are NOT put up, that is NOT religious equality, that's the majority religion being promoted by the government, which is not religious freedom. (Although the supreme court, when it was made up of all Christians, ruled that a menorah isn't a religious symbol, so a town might be able to get away with just a menorah, but that's due to a boneheaded ruling) because someone might be offended No, the issue is never who is offended, because not being offended is not a right. This tells me you don't even know what the first amendment covers. Offense is actually *protected* by the first amendment, since people have the right to say things that are offensive. I'm offended that someone else is offended and now I can't enjoy our town's usual display. Your TOWN does not have any first amendment rights to infringe; towns have powers, citizens have rights. You, personally, can put up a nativity scene on your own property. You and the town council do not have the right to spend tax money and use government property to promote YOUR religion. YOU do not believe in religious freedom; you want your town to promote your religion.

See why I don't want to argue about this? All of you have opinions, none of you seem to have made much effort to get actual information. The ACLU of San Diego has quite a bit about this, it's right on their front page. There are also a number of wildly contradictory stories about the whole situation. From July 12: http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000273 From August 3: http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000286 Like Harlan Ellison said, everybody's entitled to an INFORMED opinion. PS: Gonzo1, I don't care who you were addressing, your statement was ludicrous. And you seem to approve of the Russian Orthodox Church's efforts to get their god into government schools in Russia -- I prefer religious freedom instead of having state schools impose some official religion.

Yes, I've heard about this. Yes, I think right-wing radio talk shows are about the worst place to get accurate information about anything to do with religion. No, I don't think any of this has anything to do with scouting issues, and Fred seemed to only post the original article because it mentions scouts and because he seems threatened by atheists who advocate for their rights.

And yes Ed, they ARE allowed. School officials can't recruit for them. You still can't come up with someone "trying to eliminate a Bible Club." Stopping improper recruitment by school officials is not trying to eliminate a bible club.

Ed, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Like I said, Croft has complained about recruitment by school officials. You've given no example of Croft or anyone else trying to "eliminate a Bible Club". Can't you even read what you copy & paste?

Ed, you'll have to point out where anyone is trying to eliminate such a club; Croft complained about school officials promoting the club, and his lawsuit is only about the moment of silence, not clubs. Not even a very good attempt at a red herring argument, Ed. Just to amend my earlier post, a really exhaustive course on the periodic table of the elements would mention a few gods in passing, like Tellus, Pallus, Selene, Thor, Helios, etc.

That's a good example of the nonsense I was talking about. How is calling something "winter break" promoting atheism?! That's ridiculous. If it isn't called "Saturnalia", is that also promoting atheism?

If a schoolteacher teaches that 2+2=4 without mentioning gods, is that teaching atheism? If a schoolteacher teaches about evolution without mentioning gods, is that teaching atheism? If a school doesn't have a moment of silence at the start of the day, is that teaching atheism? If a schoolteacher has the class pray every day, and a judge rules it stopped, is that promoting atheism? If so, does this mean that every class that does NOT have a mandated prayer is promoting atheism? Maybe you could clarify what you see as promoting atheism, OGE. I think it normally takes some discussion of gods to promote atheism, if only to promote the idea that they don't exist. Not mentioning gods in teaching the periodic table isn't teaching atheism.

Wrong Ed. Public schools need to be neutral on religion.

Well Ed, now you seem to agree that it would be a problem if the Good News Bible club was given special promotion over the school's PA system. Of course, you don't really care, you just want a chance to bash atheists, like the sad little man you are.

According to Croft's chronology of events, the principal said that the flyer should not have been distributed. Croft's complain also says that the bible club was promoted by the principal during morning announcements over the PA system and by a sign in front of the school.

Atheism isn't a religion (it's the absence of a creed common to most religions), but in any case, I wasn't aware that there was any promotion of atheism in public schools. Got any examples of what sort of atheism ought to be kept out of public schools, jblake47?

Ed writes: All the complaints this sad little man had were not violating any of his or anyone else's rights. Sorry Ed, these are violations: Mr. Croft's daughter cries after a teacher tells her in front of other students to stand for the Pledge. Mr. Croft's son says his teacher told children to be quiet during the moment of silence because it's for prayer. Also the teaching of religious songs. But you can argue with him on his blog if you like: http://david-wallace-croft.blogspot.com

Ed, your idea of every else's rights come at the expense of atheists.

Yeah, fighting for the civil rights of atheists is so "useless"

A judge has ruled that some of the money was unconstitutional: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/sports-24/1186661104291250.xml&storylist=newsmichigan DETROIT (AP) -- Some grants promised to three churches as part of a program to clean up the city ahead of the 2006 Super Bowl were unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn ruled Wednesday that the Detroit Downtown Development Authority should not have awarded the churches matching grants. He said it violated separation between church and state because some of the money was spent on improving large signs and stained glass windows containing religious imagery. But Cohn ruled that most of the $725,000 was OK because any downtown property owner was eligible to apply and the church used the grants to help pay for improvements to lighting, landscaping and a steeple clock. ... acco40, since you're back and posting again, could you respond to my question about the Elgin school fee now applying to scout units?

kb6jra writes: ACLU filed suit because they received a public grant. Sued them and caused them to spend twice the amount on legal fees, then dropped the suit. Would this be the lawsuit against the Old Baldy council for a $15,000 HUD grant (which requires nondiscrimination on the basis of, among other things, religion) that they used for their Scoutreach program, which discriminates on the basis of religion? I hadn't heard it had been dropped; the Old Baldy council doesn't exist anymore, so maybe it needs to be refiled.

Ed, if you didn't want the world of fiction to enter into this, why'd you bring up a book that has talking animals, giants, and demons in it?

Ed, to quote Inigo Montoya on your interpretation of the word "reconcile": "I do not think it means what you think it means"

...says one of the people who has edited some of my posts in this forum. I don't really have much sympathy for your "feelings" of not being able to say what you like when you actively censor others, OGE.