Merlyn_LeRoy

Yes Ed, read your own definition, and realize that disbelieve = not believe. An atheist is a person who does not believe in gods. Plus, of course, the standard a- prefix means "not". asymmetrical = not symmetrical, atheist = not theist. A theist believes in (at least one) god; an atheist is someone who is not a theist.

SR540Beaver, an atheist is someone who isn't a theist. Using your definition, a Christian is an atheist because they deny the existence of a god - for example, Zeus. If you would like to ask atheists what THEY mean by the word "atheist", you can ask plenty in alt.atheism, at atheists.org, or infidels.org. If you ask someone "what gods do you believe exist?" and they answer "None", I'd say they're an atheist; would you?

The BSA litmus test is "believe in [at least one] god"; the degree of certainty doesn't enter into it. Not all theists would say they are 100% certain that their god(s) exist, and not all atheists would say that they are 100% certain that no gods exist. But the BSA standard doesn't address the degree of certainty; belief is the requirement. This scout doesn't believe in any gods, from what you've said. His degree of certainty/uncertainty doesn't matter.

The Randall twins were kicked out for being agnostics at age 12. The BSA legal website says that agnostics can't be members (not just adult leaders). The BSA went to a lot of time & expense to kick out atheists & agnostics, why are people trying to make excuses? If you belonged to a "no Jews allowed" private organization, would you quibble over whether someone was Jewish-enough to kick out?

The official BSA legal website says that atheists and agnostics can't be members.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Hunt, which nonprofits get free berths that don't meet Berkeley's requirements? Or is that not what you meant?

BrentAllen, as you say, hindsight is 20/20. However, that cannot excuse Bush's incompetence at the time. Yes, IN HINDSIGHT, there probably wasn't much that he could have done - BUT NOBODY KNEW THAT AT THE TIME. He was the only one with authority to order a shootdown, yet he was not available for seven minutes. Yes, he wasn't targeted by terrorists that day, but they also couldn't have known that at the time. Not ordering an evacuation of the school was dangerously incompetent. Any fool should have realized that. Yes, Iraq is a quagmire that we can't just walk away from, but we're there because of the dangerously incompetent Bush administration.

Gonzo1, as I've said, "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is the worst sort of antidemocratic jingoism, but you seem proud of that. And you also seem proud that Bush did nothing during a terrorist attack (when he was the ONLY person who could order a shootdown), and that no one on his incompetent staff even thought of evacuating a school where it was known long in advance that the president would be attending.

Ed, the BSA is being treated the same as any other non-profit, and the city of Berkeley can apply broad-based nondiscrimination requirements on any organization that wants a free berth, as they are a limited public resource, so free berths are reserved for organizations that serve the general public, including atheist and gay citizens who pay taxes that support the marina.

Gonzo1 writes: What is your role in scouting? None, though I was a Cub Scout about 40 years ago. I'm also director of the midwest region of Scouting For All, a group advocating that the BSA should change its admission policies. Are you registered with BSA or are you a parent? No (well, I *am* a parent, but that has no connection to the BSA) Are you an atheist? Yes. I was an atheist when I was a Cub Scout, too. So was my mom, who was a den mother. If you critizise BSA so much, why are you here? Well, this is a forum to discuss scouting issues. For example, in the very first post I made here, I raised the problem of the BSA's discrimination against atheists vs. public schools chartering BSA packs and troops. A lot of people here didn't think that public schools discriminating against atheists was even illegal, much less a looming problem for the BSA. Do you not think we are safer today because of the Bush Doctrine and the war on terror? No, I agree with the recent National Intelligence Estimate that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. I also consider the Bush administration dangerously inconpetent. For example, on 9/11, Bush was informed of the second airplane hitting the second WTC tower during a photo-op in a grade school reading "The Pet Goat". At that time, the ONLY person who had the authority to order a civilian airliner shot down was the president. So, did Bush leave the classroom and get in touch with NORAD? No, he spent the NEXT SEVEN MINUTES in the classroom. During this time another hijacking notification came into NORAD. Too bad the only person who could issue an order to shoot it down was too busy. Also, this photo-op was known ahead of time - there was no way of knowing at the time if the hijackers were ALSO targeting the president, and would crash an airplane into the school. But was the school evacuated? No. Dangerously incompetent.

Gonzo1, disagreeing with the Bush administration's disasterous policies is hardly siding with terrorists, and it's rather pointless to try to argue with those who make such simplistic and antidemocratic statements.

Gonzo1, since I don't have a Boy Scout handbook and wouldn't be interested in getting one, I have no idea what it would say on page 10. And since you've aligned yourself with the anti-democratic, jingoistic nonsense that "you're either with us or with the terrorists", I don't consider you capable of intelligent debate.

Ed, the BSA is being treated the SAME as all other non-profits. ALL organizations that get free berths have to meet Berkeley's non-discrimination requirements. You really CAN'T learn things.

Ed, I know you can't learn things, but the BSA is still discriminating. They don't have free berths, but they can still discriminate. They can't both discriminate AND get free berths.

The Berkeley Yacht Club, the Cal Sailing Club, and the Nautilus Institute. www.bsalegal.org/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=5

Nothing illegal about it, Ed. Any organization that wants a free berth has to meet several criteria; the Sea Scouts don't meet all of them. Now, if they'd only switch from being a Sea Scout Ship to an Explorer Post, they probably *can* meet all the criteria, including the nondiscrimination requirements.

No Ed, other non-profit groups get free berths, because they also meet the nondiscrimination requirements. The Sea Scouts no longer qualify for free berths, because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion.

(I disagree with the story stating that the Sea Scouts are being treated differently - they are being treated the same as all other non-profits): http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/15772586.htm WASHINGTON - A Boy Scouts sailing group that lost free use of a public boat slip because of the Scouts' discriminatory policies failed to persuade the Supreme Court to take its case. The justices on Monday let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofits because the Scouts bar atheists and gays. The leader of the Sea Scouts argued that forcing the group to pay for a berth at the marina violated the group's free speech and freedom of association rights. ...

Gonzo1 writes: Have you heard of the Bush Doctrine? Your're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Which are you? Ah, disagreeing with the president is now treason, eh? That's the refrain of dictators and tyrants. There's nothing false, Iraq supported terrorists, so did the taliban. That doesn't show that Iraq had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks. So, I'd bet that the military and the White House have better, nore current and accurate intel than Merlyn. They do. However, if you haven't been paying attention, the intel Bush got did not indicate that Iraq had any connection to the 9/11 attacks. As long as Saddam had WMD, Saddam was a threat. Which WMDs would those be?

I can't help noticing that when you ask about "the Party of ethics and morals" and I suggest the Bush administration deliberately misleading the American public about Iraq and 9/11, you don't even address that, but instead point more fingers at Democrats.

Gonzo1, none of what you've said addresses the Bush administration's deliberately creating the false impression that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Although it does resemble some of the arguments here... "Foley (a Republican) is involved in scandalous behavior that other Republicans knew about months ago - blame the Democrats!" "The US was attacked by terrorists, most of which were from Saudi Arabia - blame Iraq!"

Beavah writes: True homosexuality (exclusive preference for the same sex) is a nearly 100% negative selector. That's just hard to overcome mathematically with any benefit, eh? But you HAVEN'T ruled out any benefit. That's what I've been trying to point out. Having full-blown sickle-cell anemia is negative, but inheriting just one gene from a parent is an advantage in areas with malaria. In the same way, it's quite possible that, since homosexuality has some genetic component, there is some as-yet unknown advantage to having such genes. You are ASSUMING there is no benefit - but you have no basis to make that assumption. You also need to explain why identical twins raised apart show a strong correlation in sexual orientation. If homosexuality has no genetic component, there should be NO correlation. But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical. Your original point uses faulty logic. It's an invalid argument.

BrentAllen writes: Uh, where is Tom Delay these days? Speaker of the House? That doesn't change what your supposedly "housecleaning" Republicans did to change their ethics rules to specifically shield DeLay. DeLay's lack of ethics finally caught up with him, but the Republicans kept him as long as they could. Now, do you still want to talk about the Party of ethics and morals? I'll be glad to! Let's see, the Republican administration deliberately misleading the American public on Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks would be a start.

Gonzo1, DanKroh is right; the Loving decision says that marriage is a civil right, and not merely a priviledge, as you stated. He quoted the part of the opinion that stated that marriage is a civil right, and that's in the link to the decision that you posted. You also don't seem to have read the decision very closely; the bigoted judge(s) were in the lower courts, which uphelp racial restrictions on marriage. The supreme court overturned these lower decisions and held that the lower courts' reasons were invalid, partly BECAUSE marriage is a civil right and cannot be restricted by race.

Beavah, your original statement is flatly wrong: But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh? The above is a statement that, since "true homosexuality" (whatever that is) is an evolutionary dead-end, it CANNOT be genetically transmitted. That's faulty reasoning, pure and simple. You tried to backpedal on my example of genetic diseases, but that actually refutes your position. If some genetic diseases can confer benefits under some circumstance (such as the well-known malaria resistance from inheriting one sickle-cell gene), it's quite possible that exactly the SAME sort of situation holds for homosexuality - inheriting one gene confers a benefit, while inheriting both results in homosexuality. But your flat (and unscientific) statement that it CANNOT be genetically transmitted is ridiculous. Like I said, I'll stick with real science.