Merlyn_LeRoy

Don't worry Ed, most of them are dead. They contributed before the BSA institutionalized their newfound religious bigotry.

It shouldn't be too surprising; the BSA webpage on BL even lists "bible stories" as one of its special features: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/00-bl90.html Under its list of contributors I can count at least 4 atheists.

Ed writes: Just because there are people who don't believe in something doesn't means it ain't true! Ed, lots of people believe lots of nonsense, which is why what's taught in science class shouldn't be decided by people ignorant of what science is, like the former Dover school board.

Ed, nothing is ever "proved" in science. There are still people who seriously believe the earth is flat and/or is the center of the universe, and if you'd like to abandon scientific standards, there's no way to keep them out of science classes, either.

Nothing is ever "proved" in science, proofs are for formal systems like mathematics. Theories are models that explain observations and make predictions.

fullquiver writes: Remember when the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Pythagoras figured out that the earth was a large sphere and Eratosthenes accurately measured the size of the earth to within 50 miles 2200 years ago. Only ignorant people thought the earth was flat. They did go in for geocentrism, but I'd be against teaching geocentrism in public schools, too. Anyone arguing that intelligent design ought to be taught in public schools will have a hard time keeping out geocentrism. Some creationists are also geocentrists (and/or flat earthers). But that's what will happen if you justify teaching non-science as science - there's no obvious stopping point. If you go by popular beliefs of non-scientists, better start teaching astrology in astronomy class, and since an appallingly large percentage of people in the US seem to not even know that the earth orbits the sun, dust off geocentrism too. And since the vatican still has classes in exorcism, equal time for the demon theory of diseases. "You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach." -- Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

OGE writes: I am not sure how something universally known as the "Theory of Evolution" could be taught as fact, but then I havent been everywhere so I guess it could happen "Evolution" is used to describe both theories and facts ("gravitation" is another term that gets used in this way). Facts are observations, while theories seek to explain the observations. Here are some facts: allele frequencies in a population are observed to change over time planets are observed to orbit the sun over time new species are observed to arise out of populations a rock will fall when dropped Here are some theories explaining the above facts: allele frequencies change due to many factors, including reproductive fitness and mutations between any two masses, there is an attractive force [nearly] proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them if one population is divided into two separate populations, mating pairs between the two populations may be unable to produce fertile offspring (or even any offspring) over time due to genetic drift falling rock explanation is same as orbital explanation All of the above could be categorized under evolution or gravitation, even though some items are observed facts, and some are (very abbreviated) theories explaining the facts. It's also a good example of some of the strengths of science - notice how the theory that explains the planets orbiting also explains why rocks fall, even though the two observations are very different. Seeing planets as lights in the sky, moving and not falling, does not at all resemble a rock falling. Also notice that Newton's laws, while still useful, are known to be inaccurate. It was replaced by a theory that closely resembled Newton's laws when dealing with small masses and velocities well below the speed of light, but differed when calculating Mercury's orbit (which never quite matched Newtonian predictions) and predicting whether the sun's gravity would bend light rays (Newton says no, Einstein says yes). Believe me, when a well-established theory starts to have genuine, scientific holes in it, scientists TRY to break the old theory - because that's when breakthroughs occur. Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity in 1915, and in 1919, a long solar eclipse would occur in South America, which would enable scientists to observe if the sun's gravity would bend starlight and cause stars near it to appear shifted. Two British expeditions were sent, and their observations agreed with Einstein and not Newton. If evolution had any real problems, thousands of scientists (with all kinds of different religious views) would be trying to break it.

Prairie_Scouter writes: I'd prefer not to think about this in terms of "good guys" or "bad guys". The mistake being made, that the court tried to correct, is the impression that intelligent design is science. I would like to think of this in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". Pushing creationism into public schools isn't done by mistake, it's done to get religious teachings into public schools using deliberate deception (as can be seen by how the creationist school board members lied in court). Creationism is not science, because it does not meet the rigorous standards that make science useful. Creationism does not lead to new knowledge, like how to fight diseases - evolution does. Here's a recent Doonesbury strip that illustrates that: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif Any arguments to include creationism would have a hard time keeping geocentrists out; anyone willing to teach alternative theories that say the earth is the center of the universe?

I find it unlikely that a Republican judge appointed by George Bush would address issues not before his court and state "god is a myth". However, he apparently was not pleased by how blatantly and often the school board supporters of Intelligent Design lied under oath in his courtroom: ... Although Baksa claims he does not recall Bonsell identifying "creationism" as the subject with which he wanted to share equal time with evolution, nor that Bonsell mentioned "creationism" at any time up until April 1, 2003, we do not find his testimony on this point to be credible. ... It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants' opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled "Myth of Separation" by David Barton. ... Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. ... As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs' election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy. ...

schleining writes: ... I think it is a bad habit to pick and choose which policies you follow or enforce. ... Anne Frank... c'mon... you are equating life and death with the decision to have COs in the Schools... ... So should public schools pick & choose what laws to follow, or should they follow civil rights laws and not charter BSA units which require them to practice religious discrimination? And I wasn't "equating" the two issues, I only used the classic Anne Frank question to point out that lying isn't always wrong.

C.S. Lewis was terrible at logic; his lord/liar/lunatic false trilemma overlooks plenty of other possibilities, such as being misquoted.

ronvo writes: However I do think it wrong he would use a scouting background for his Declaration of War. He must have some other problems besides the ones he has with Christianity. Since he's an atheist, it really shouldn't be that hard to guess what problems he has with scouting.

CA_Scouter writes: This is not Scout like behavior. Get a room, get on AOL, mud pies at 20 paces or a rubber band war, but do your personal arguing elsewhere PLEASE!!!! Since this particular forum expressly exists to talk about BSA issues including the 3Gs, I suggest you leave the "Issues & Politics" forum instead. "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

Ed writes: You might have never said you would lie but endorsing it is practically the same thing! To lie to someone because they lie to you shows a lack of morals. So you agree the BSA has lied to schools? And part of my unconcern about people lying to the BSA is because the BSA obviously allowed it; they knew for years that public schools couldn't exclude atheists from BSA units, yet they continued to issue charters to them. It's hardly different for another BSA unit to ignore the policy when the BSA tacitly allowed thousands of public schools to do so.

You're right about one thing, Ed; I wouldn't want to lower my standards to the BSA's level of dishonesty. You'll notice I never stated I myself would lie (I'd make sure the BSA knew I wasn't going to follow their policy); I only said I don't think it's terribly dishonest to lie to a dishnoest organization like the BSA.

Hunt writes: Merlyn, your last post proves my point--it's always been part of BSA that you had to believe in God, and until pretty recently it would have been unecessary to state that gays weren't welcome. Actually, I disagree. The BSA certainly didn't make it clear that you had to believe in at least one god when I was a member and my atheist mom was a den mother. Plus, just by your phrasing "had to believe in God", do you mean that polytheists can't be members? Your argument really makes no sense--if a voluntary organization to which you belong changes its rules so you're no longer welcome, you think it's OK to lie so you can stay it? Given the way the BSA has dishonestly "changed its rules" while allowing (and even encouraging) public schools to charter BSA units, yes, I'd say it's OK to lie, because the BSA wasn't honest about its own policies. By cutting off public school charters, I've actually helped greatly reduce the number of such dishonest units, so I've done more to correct this than anyone else here. But units chartered to private organizations can still lie and ignore the BSA's policies as far as I'm concerned. And as you yourself said in the other thread, it doesn't really affect how the program is run (which is pretty obvious by the number of units that ignore, or have ignored, the policy).

Hunt writes: The fact is that once you take away the government sponsorship element, critics of BSA have no really good argument as to why a group of religious people shouldn't form a club that is restricted to religious people. Oh, FORMING one is fine (and being clear from the outset that it's a religious organization that excludes specific people); but let's say we've got a Scout group that's been around 40 years (that is, it predates even the secret, internal "no gays" memos at national). Now, in the intervening years, the BSA has increased their no gays, no atheists rhetoric and created a new, official policy that gays are not welcome (and that part, at least, IS new; it simply didn't exist as any kind of policy pre-1978). Should they scuttle their program, or keep it and just ignore the policies they disagree with? And nobody here can come in and say "I'm shocked, SHOCKED that units are ignoring policy", because it's obvious public schools ignored both the gay and atheist policies before, during, and after the Dale decision. I've talked directly to some school officials who insisted their school's Scout or Venturing program did not exclude gay or atheist students (including one who was the school principal AND past chair of the Three Rivers District of the Viking Council). But they can only say this by following the law, which means they HAVE to ignore official BSA policy.

Ed writes: Yes Merlyn I know 12/25 isn't Christs birthday Odd you would refer to it as "Christs birthday", then. And, of course, I have no problem taking days off, while YOUR religion prohibits you from participating in other religions' celebrations, yet you do. "Christmas" is from pagan holiday celebrations. I'd assume you don't keep the sabbath, either (which is Saturn's Day). Personally, I think all religious holidays should be taken as floating holidays, for the obvious reason that not everyone celebrates the same religious holidays. But there I go, letting people decide for themselves, instead of assigning religious holidays, as you seem to like. Decorating a tree is in violation of the bible? Please site chapter & verse! Jeremiah 10:2-4 And if an agnostic states he believes in God he can become a BSA member! Better get the BSA legal website to change, then; according to them, agnostics can't be members.

Ed wrote: So, Merlyn, you do take Christs birthday off even though you don't believe He was God! What? You think December 25th was Jesus' birthday?! I thought everyone knew that date was stolen from other religions. All the dates are due to the winter solstice, when days stop getting shorter and start getting longer again. It has nothing to do with your religion, Ed. By the way, do you decorate a tree, in violation of the bible? Now, in my particular case, the building would be locked, so I wouldn't be able to work in any case. And Ed, there are plenty of agnostics who don't believe in any gods - you really need to ask any particular agnostic directly, since the term isn't used very precisely. Of course, to be certain, you need to ask Buddhists, Jews, and other people (who may or may not follow a religion) directly too, since you can be a Buddhist or a Jew and not believe in any gods, either. But, like I said, a lot of people ignore the BSA's dumber rules, and it's easy to see why.

How is taking Xmas off ignoring a "rule"? And the BSA's official legal website says that agnostics can't be members, so Ed, you've been violating BSA policy. Of course, since the BSA still has 'unwritten rules', it's hardly surprising that they get ignored.

5-4 court decisions aren't "persecution", and the BSA certainly acted like a public accommodation pre-Dale (such as public schools owning & operating BSA units). Post-Dale, the BSA hasn't been honest enough to divest itself of all the things that a private, discriminatory, religious organization isn't entitled to (like the aforementioned public school charters), so the BSA has to be threatened with legal action to behave honestly.

Of COURSE lying isn't always wrong - insert the standard "nazis ask you about Anne Frank's location while she's hiding in your attic" question here. And the BSA didn't decide to move charters out of public schools, they were forced to, because the BSA wasn't honest enough to do that on their own. I would actually prefer all of the BSA units that refuse to follow the BSA's discriminatory policies inform the BSA of that decision, but I'm sure they're all afraid of losing their charter, and it's easier to just lie to the BSA. I don't consider lying to the BSA under such circumstances to be very unethical, and I consider following the BSA's policies to be more unethical, so it's more a choice of doing what is less unethical.

How is the BSA being 'persecuted', Ed? Threats to sue public schools that charter units?

Oh, violating the BSA's stupid policies are just fine with me, Ed. Hey Ed, how many public schools do you think enforced the BSA's religious membership requirements? Ignoring the BSA's religious rules are legal, but for a public school to enforce them is illegal - a civil rights violation. So which rule would you suggest a public school official ignore?

Eamonn writes: Sure if the idea of a school chartering a BSA unit is going to upset someone I can maybe see how not having one is a good idea. While I think it's sad that we have lost religion in our schools that is just me. Would you rather go back to 1844, where a dozen Christians were killed in Philadelphia over the bible riots? Christians killing other Christians over which version of the bible to use in public schools. Or maybe you'd like to rescind Engel v. Vitale, so school bureaucrats can write prayers for other people's children to recite. What you see as "lost religion" is really religious freedom. You just can't see it. Not being a native born American, I do get a little confused at times. I always thought of Americans as being against "Big Government", I think the idea that the government can dictate to a school district is un-American. What ever happened to the will of the people? If a local school decided that all children will recite Christian prayers at the start of school, would that be OK with you? Here in the sleepy little hamlet where I live, parents would love to see their kid take part in a Christmas play. And I'm sure there are churches that would love to put on such a play, so what's stopping them? The local community supports Scouting and the BSA, in fact they see bashing the BSA as just wrong. Well, some people still support whites-only groups, and see criticism of those groups as wrong, too. But it seems that they have no voice. Sure they do; they just can't use their local government to promote their particular religious views (and neither can anyone else). As for: "There are a few Venture Crews on the east coast that were formed for medieval fantasy role-playing, run by college-age kids, and you'd better believe they ignore the no gays or atheists rules" I think you are talking about NERO? Not that particular one, no, but I'd be willing to be that every LARP (live-action role playing) group that's a Venturing Crew ignores the no gays/no atheists rules. I have no idea if they ignore the rules or not? I do know that I helped get a Crew started that wanted to use the NERO program as a activity for a Venturing Crew. Sure there were a few people who weren't happy but NERO is dedicated to the legendary days of high fantasy, while running a fun (and above all safe) game. http://www.polarlarp.com/ I admit it's not my cup of tea, but these guys seem to enjoy it and they have all signed the BSA membership form. I would hope that they wouldn't be telling lies?? I'd be willing to bet a lot of them are lying; why don't you ask them and report back? LARPs generally need insurance coverage, and they can get it pretty cheaply by being a Crew. And do you think lying to the BSA is uncommon? When I corresponded with the Centre County Sheriff's Office about their Search & Rescue Venture Crew, everyone connected with the program insisted that they don't discriminate (and discriminating against anyone on the basis of religion or sexual orientation is against their written nondiscrimination policy). Do you think public schools that used to charter Scout units kept atheists out of them? They'd get sued, and lose. Ed writes: Are you saying because we can't agree on what an agnostic believes is a good reason schools shouldn't charter BSA units? Don't see the correlation. If this issue had arisen in a unit chartered by a public school, do you think the principal should decide if the student is "religious enough" to be a member in the school's Scout unit? Just because there are some BSA units that ignore policy doesn't make it OK. Sure it does. I'm all in favor of BSA units ignoring the policy, and many do already. And, of course, the BSA dishonestly chartered units to public schools for decades, yet you manage to never see that as dishonest. This is just the opposite situation, where an organization deliberately intends to ignore the BSA's requirements.