Merlyn_LeRoy

Gonzo1 writes: Trees and plants use the CO2 to make oxygen. And do you think they somehow magically use up more CO2 if the CO2 concentration goes up? They're slacking off, because it's been going up since they started measuring it in 1958. Shouldn't plants be sucking up all that excess CO2 according to you?

Gonzo1 writes: Man can cause pollution, man CAN NOT cause the Earth to heat up. Only the big fire ball in the sky can do that. And by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it traps more heat, and the Earth DOES heat up. The heat is still from that big fire ball in the sky. The surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury because of Venus' atmosphere.

david.self writes: It would seem to me that IF the evidence shows that X precedes Y, then it would follow that Y does not cause X. Only in that particular case; BrentAllen is trying to use it in the general case, where *no* Y causes X. If I find a corpse that has been shot in the head, but an autopsy shows that the person died of arsenic poisoning before being shot, this does not allow me to conclude that getting shot in the head does not cause death. It didn't in this case, but I can't generalize it to all gunshot wounds.

BrentAllen writes: And the evidence is that CO2 levels rose AFTER warming in the past, not before it. That kills their theory, plain and simple. No, it doesn't. What needs to be shown to kill the theory is that CO2 emissions from human sources will not affect the average global temperature to a significant degree, and the above doesn't come anywhere near that.

Hunt, I didn't put words in your mouth, I stated that that's what you seemed to be saying. It still seems that way to me. No, I don't know what other improper expenditures exist, the US military hasn't given me a list, so I don't really have any way of knowing. And finally, this ruling was remanded only on standing, and only 3 judges of the full circuit court indicated how they might rule, so that's no guarantee of what the full circuit might rule. And no, I don't think first amendment violations are petty.

In this particular case, the military is acting under a specific law (10 USC Sec. 2554), which only allows for the loan of equipment, services, and the only expendable listed by the law is medical supplies.

Hunt, the amount isn't relevant; it was cited as one example of military spending that was unrelated to military readiness. You seem to think that constitutional violations that are small enough are somehow OK. And the circuit court didn't rule on the case on its merits, they said the plaintiffs didn't have standing. They did not reverse the original ruling.

Well Hunt, you don't seem to understand what a "not-exhaustive" list is; just for future reference, the ACLU lawsuit didn't attempt to list every improper expenditure, just a few typical examples. The current legislation ONLY supports the BSA; any legislation that legitimately supported military goals like training and recruitment would apply to ANY large gathering that would offer similar training and recruitment oppertunities. But there is no such legislation, because it's really just a public subsidy to a private religious organization. Maybe if the US military practiced in different places with other groups and had to solve new logistics problems (instead of setting up in the same location year after year), the military might actually get better when disasters like hurricane Katrina strike. But I guess it's more important for the BSA to live off public money while pretending to teach self-sufficiency, and to discriminate while pretending to teach character. You know, the Girl Scouts might hold a jamboree if the government would subsidise 1/3 of the cost.

OGE, the BSA can pay for their own cookies; if the army wants to make cookies as some sort training, the BSA can pay for it, since they get the cookies. It's this kind of direct spending on a private group that even the DoD disallows -- they're just buying food for a private organization.

Hunt, the cookie dough was only one example of a not-exhaustive list, to show that the DoD is spending money that is unrelated to military readiness, the supposed reason for supporting the jamboree. If you think you can rationalize buying cookie dough is important military training, go ahead and try to justify it. I say it's obviously spending tax dollars for the benefit of a private religious group, in violation of both the constitution and the DoD's own requirements.

So principles mean nothing?

You don't have to go to all that trouble, just send me the $5000

Part of the lawsuit against the DoD cited expenditures that obviously only benefited the boy scouts without any sort of "training" rationale, like $5000 worth of cookie dough.

Ed, the BSA says it's a religious organization. The courts agree. What part don't you understand?

Hey Ed, which members of Firesign Theatre are atheists? I've known them for years, and I frankly don't know. David Ossman's wife is a Buddhist, I think, and Phil Austin seems somewhat religious, but I've never heard any of them state that they're an atheist. Keep in mind that I'm not a member of Firesign Theatre, I do their web site. And why do you think that religious organizations can only be made up of one religion? Why wouldn't an organization made up of, say, members of the various Abrahamic religions be a "religious organization"?

Oaktree, there would still be problems with a hypothetical BSA stance that allowed everyone to join but monotheism is the expected norm, as far as government sponsorship is concerned. Gonzo1, I mostly comment on atheist issues because I'm an atheist, and also because the BSA's religious discrimination usually raises the most difficult legal questions.

Is this like how school-sponsored pack was never valid, since a public school can't sign a valid charter argreement to exclude atheists?

And what should have people expected when their kids joined a cub scout pack sponsored by their public school? Kick out atheists? At least two regular posters here who were in charge of school-sponsored packs have said they'd do exactly that.

Gonzo1, you're the one who doesn't understand the difference between a school-sponsored group and an outside group. Fellowship of Christian Athletes is an evangelical group, and public schools cannot be in the business of trying to convert its students to Christianity; it is not a school-run group, and any school that has FCA would likewise be required to allow a similar Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc. group. But when a public school charters a cub scout pack, the school is in charge of excluding students on religious grounds. Public schools can't do this. By the way, even the national BSA isn't trying to fight this one: http://www.scouting.org/relationships/34196/01.html ... Note: Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations ...

The only way to find out is to bring supreme court cases.

The only court opinions I know about that have addressed the BSA's status have concluded that it's a religious organization, not a non-sectarian organization.

Ed, public schools can't run "no atheists" clubs any more than they can run "no Jews" clubs. It doesn't matter if joining is voluntary, because public schools can't refuse membership based on religion. But you can't learn this.

Ed, a public school can't discriminate on the basis of religion; doing so is a violation of the student's civil rights. Running a club that excludes people on the basis of religion is doing exactly that.

You really can't learn, Ed. Sorry if you're bored by my repetition, but when you keep demonstrating that you can't learn, I'll keep pointing it out. I've answered your questions before; if you could learn, you wouldn't keep asking the same ones. I've told you before that public schools violate the rights of atheists by sponsoring no-atheists clubs. I've told you before that atheists have the same rights as you. You can't learn things. You've managed to learn that I keep telling you that "you can't learn things", but you have yet to learn things I've stated previously, like the fact that atheists have the same rights as you, and that this includes not being discriminated against by public schools.

Ed writes: What atheist rights are being violated? One of your own examples: 3) There is never a requirement to swear on a bible in US law Yes I know but some judges require it Right there Ed. An atheist's rights are being violated if a judge tries to require that they swear on a bible. For chaplains, I've explained that before; you just can't learn. Same for scouts having religious membership requirements and how public schools can't do so. Hunt writes: I'll thank you not to mischaracterize my position. I didn't say you thought it was legal; I said you were not at all concerned about it. Your past statements show no concern about public schools discriminating against atheist students by chartering BSA units. And three judges of the 7th circuit are not the same as the supreme court, so they can hardly preview what the supreme court "would" do.