Merlyn_LeRoy

It would be preferable for public schools to actually teach children during classtime, instead of having membership drives for private, discriminatory religious organizations.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1109813285143540.xml&storylist=orlocal Court backs atheist mother in scout case By CHARLES E. BEGGS The Associated Press SALEM, Ore. (AP) The state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday there is "substantial evidence" that the Portland School District illegally discriminated against an atheist student by allowing in-school recruiting by the Boy Scouts. The 6-3 decision is the latest development in a long-running battle by an atheist mother to prevent the Boy Scouts from recruiting in Portland schools because the organization requires a belief in God. The new ruling sends the case back to the state school superintendent for conciliation efforts to resolve the dispute. The district, meanwhile, is considering adopting a policy that could ban Scouts from recruiting during school hours. The controversy began in 1996, when Nancy Powell, an atheist, objected to Boy Scout recruiting visits to an elementary school attended by her son, Remington, who is now in high school. Nancy Powell sued the school district in 1998, claiming that because the Scout oath and principles require a belief in God, the recruiting violated the Oregon Constitution's ban on government involvement with religion. The appeals court in 2002 ruled in the school district's favor, saying the recruiting did not amount to an "unconstitutionally excessive entanglement of government with religion." The state Supreme Court let the lower court decision stand by refusing to review it. The Court of Appeals' decision Wednesday came in a separate lawsuit brought by Powell under a state statute forbidding public schools from discriminating based on religion. Former State School Superintendent Stan Bunn concluded that there was no solid evidence of discrimination, but the appeals court disagreed in a ruling upholding Multnomah County Circuit Judge Ellen Rosenblum. "There is substantial evidence that, by giving the Scouts the access that it does, the district treats those students who are eligible to join the Scouts differently from those who are not," the appeals court said. The court said while all students have been required to listen to an introductory presentation, "only the students who meet a religious test may accept the invitation to join." That amounts to substantial evidence, the court said, that the district "subjects persons to differentiated treatment in a school activity on the ground of religion."

Hunt, I called you a liar way back when you falsely stated that I would argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate. Since that is the complete opposite of my actual position I called you a liar. And you can't seem to get over it. You keep bringing up the fact that I called you a liar. Now you're whining and trying to get me banned as if I'm trolling, because I'm "rude" enough to call people liars when they lie.

And in two days, it will be exactly three years ago when I first posted here... Change that to "exactly four years ago".

Hunt writes: Merlyn, by talking about a "false dichotomy" (which isn't false at all), you are dodging the real question: are you simply trolling this message board? Hunt, a false dichotomy is where only two alternatives are given as if they encompass all possibilities; your false dichotomy was "you would care if you were really participating here in order to persuade people of your point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply trolling this message board, I can see why you wouldn't care. Which is it?" You're setting up a false dichotomy that either 1) I somehow MUST care that calling someone a liar is rude, and should refrain from doing so in order to persuade people to my point of view, or 2) I'm just trolling. You only give me two possible choices with "Which is it?" That's a false dichotomy -- "false" because it doesn't include all possibilities, but claims to do so. And you go on to illustrate WHY false dichotomies are fallacies, because you try to use it to show that I'm not doing (1) so I must be (2), trolling. But (2) does not follow, because you used a false dichotomy to get there. For your information, I don't answer false dichotomies; it's like trying to answer "have you stopped beating your wife?" The whole basis of the question is wrong, and the best response is to point out that the question itself is based on a fallacy. And in two days, it will be exactly three years ago when I first posted here and brought up the problems with public schools as chartering partners, and according to scoutldr's recent post, the BSA has finally realized that such an arrangement wouldn't survive a legal challenge. I'm hardly trolling when I'm right.

Ed writes: I don't lie and I don't appreciate being called a liar. Perhaps you can explain how "Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on" is something other than a lie, then. You can't justify it by saying it's your "opinion," because it's about a matter of fact - you're falsely claiming the ACLU only supports the rights of atheists, which is easily shown to be wrong. Nothing can be a "lie" if any statement can be claimed to be an opinion, which makes the whole distinction between true and false ridiculous. Stop whining.

Hunt writes: Well, you ought to care, and you would care if you were really participating here in order to persuade people of your point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply trolling this message board, I can see why you wouldn't care. Which is it? That's a false dichotomy. And I don't agree with your assumption that shying away from using the term "liar" makes it easier to persuade people to one's point of view. If people use invalid methods of argument (like false dichotomies) I'll actually point out that they are using a false dichotomy; similarly, if someone is using an invalid method of argument by simply lying, I'll point out that they're lying. Neither one is part of a valid argument.

As I said before, I don't use the word 'liar' as an insult, I use it when I think someone is lying; I don't care if you think it's rude.

Merlyn is an atheist. And if you post an opinion contrary to his belief, you are a liar! Stop lying, Ed.

Hunt, I didn't call you a liar unfairly; you made a false statement about my views without bothering to find out from me if they actually WERE my views. In a similar vein, Ed has made false statements about who the ACLU will and will not defend. Now, you can call these "unfair exaggerations," and the Alabama council can tell the FBI that they only made some "unfair exaggerations," but I will continue to use the much shorter term "lies." I also wonder why my calling lies "lies" (instead of using mealy-mouthed and misleading wording like "unfair exaggerations") makes you want to get me banned, or that you consider me a good counter-example as a non-scouter. The BSA hardly looks like an honest organization nowadays, and ignoring dishonest behavior won't help. I don't use the word "liar" as a pejorative insult; I use it when, in my opinion, a person is lying.

Ed, when did Marcavage ask the ACLU to get involved? http://www.jewishexponent.com/Zoom.asp?storyID=23957&szparent=586&pubID=298&Archive= ... Although Repent America wants to make Marcavages case a constitutional issue, the organization hasnt sought out the American Civil Liberties Union, largely because it considers ACLU anti-Christian, according to Marcavage. Nevertheless, the ACLUs Pennsylvania office has been following the case closely. Vic Walczak, the ACLUs state legal director, said that the issues surrounding the case are not clear-cut. Other Supreme Court decisions allow groups to exclude those with dissenting messages from public space during an event, he said. But since Outfest takes place over eight blocks, the issue becomes more complicated. At the heart of the matter is whether the protesters removal was illegal, and if Marcavages felony charge was excessive, said Walczak.

It's about time; they should have been dropped in 2000, after the Dale decision.

Ed writes: My original statement was my opinion. You might not like it but it isn't a lie! No, your original statement was NOT an opinion, it was a supposedly "factual" statement which knew was incorrect - in other words, a lie. You stated that the ACLU only "support(s) atheists when their rights are stepped on," which is trivially shown to be false by merely finding one instance where the ACLU has supported a non-atheist when their rights were stepped on. I don't lie, sir. You clearly do, which is why I keep calling you a liar. Because you quite clearly ARE a liar. Do you work for the Greater Alabama Council?

Ed writes: No lie. Just my observations. Has the ACLU gotten involved? If not, why not? That has nothing to do with your original statement, which was a lie: Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on. If you ever decide to stop lying, I'll stop calling you a liar.

Stop lying, Ed. Seriously. You aren't even good at it.

Here's a news story: http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4178329/detail.html Here's the text of the bill: http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0209/4178328.pdf Is mhagar from Maryland? What do we do when he wins a scholarship? What does the state do when he applies for the scholarship???? The wording of the bill would suggest that anyone awarded Eagle Scout would be elligible; there are no qualifications apart from "is an Eagle Scout", plus residency requirements (and whatever other preexisting requirements are in current Maryland law - the bill inserts text into existing law, so it's a bit hard to tell if there are more requirements). Apparently, any Eagle Scout could move to Maryland and qualify after living there long enough. As far as I can tell, the BSA doesn't rescind Eagle Scout status, so mhagar would still meet the requirements. The Randall twins would be a more interesting case, because their Eagle BOR passed them, but I don't know if the national BSA considers them Eagle Scouts.

How is an Eagle Scout/Gold Award full ride scholarship different than a son or daughter of a Medal of Honor winner attending West Point for free? I realize that everyone attends West Point for free, but the sons/daughters of Medal of Honor winners are the only ones guaranteed admission. There is no religious discrimination involved in the latter; since atheists can't be eagle scouts, there is inherent religious discrimination in tax-funded eagle scout scholarships. How is this different from Affirmative Action, or race-based scholarships? No religious discrimination there, either. AA requires that current policies be narrowly tailored to address past discrimination or increase diversity, so unless you can show that colleges have been systematically denying scholarships or admissions to scouts, you can't point to AA as justification. The Boy Scouts are a private, discriminatory, religious organization. It should be pretty obvious that the state can't decide to use public tax money to pay for college for its members.

I've actually been on this since Tuesday. If it passes, it will be challenged immediately because atheist boys have no way to get this tax-paid college tuition, solely due to their religious views, which would make the bill unconstitutional on its face. The BSA's religious discrimination is enough to kill it, and any similar arrangements using public tax money in other states.

Fuzzy Bear, if the BSA wins court cases based partially on their claims that they are a religious organization, and now they say they AREN'T a religious organization, their earlier court victories no longer apply, because they were issued on the basis that the Boy Scouts ARE a religious organization. But the courts don't put up with such nonsense, which is why Judge Jones found that the BSA was indeed still a religious organization in the Balboa Park case.

I left out the judge's opinion because the BSA doesn't care about it. They do not want to be "painted into a corner by their own words" because they most likely dont care about that either. Ah. So the word of the BSA is worthless. Gotcha. Judging by Alabama and the Circle Ten Council, I'd agree. It's still not a way to win court cases. I'd also suggest you refrain from making obviously wrong statements like "The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization". They DO.

Fuzzy Bear writes: Merlyn, Note the yearly progression of your quotes. (*rearranged) I'll note the context of the quotes: "It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization." Washington Post 1995 BSA spokesman talking to the press. "Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization." BSA 1998 legal Brief An official legal statement made under penalty of perjury by the BSA and its attorneys. On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion." BSA spokesman talking to the press. The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner.- Fuzzy Bear- Scouters Forum 2/07/05. A personal opinion of someone who does not represent the BSA Note that only one statement is made under the penalty of perjury. Also note that official BSA spokesmen contradict each other depending on whether they want to be considered a religious organization (so they can kick out people), or not be considered a religious organization (so they aren't kicked out themselves). That's the BSA being dishonest. Again. And you completely omitted the judge's opinion where he ruled that the BSA is a religious organization. The BSA has said a number of times in court that they are a religious organization. Your opinion to the contrary carries no weight. You're simply avoiding reality. You don't win court battles that way.

In the DS9 episode where they went back to the old Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles," they have both the old-style Klingons and Worf. When his crewmates ask him about why the Klingons look different, Worf says "We don't talk about that." A two-part Enterprise story coming up on Feb 18 and 25 is supposed to explain it: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=30020

Fuzzy Bear writes: The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner. The BSA, the courts (and even Bill O'Reilly) disagree with you: in 1995, when the BSA kicked out Buzz Grambo in Maryland for being an atheist, BSA national spokesman Richard W. Walker was quoted in the Washington Post: "It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization." In the Balboa Park lease case, the judge ruled that the Boy Scouts were a religious organization, based in part on the BSA's own filings in the case where they stated they were an organization with a "religious purpose" and had a "faith-based mission to serve young people and their families." Bill O'Reilly even figured this out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html ... On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion." However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here's the quote in '98: "Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization." ... [i'm pretty sure the above quote is from the Pool/Geller case] Leaving the religious issue to ones own conscience is actually what the BSA does but it is tied to a belief in God. The issue of God will continue to separate us from many that would otherwise be of support to the organization. It's certainly going to cut the BSA off from about 5% of its current troop chartering organizations and 12% of current pack chartering organizations that are government agencies. It looks like at least three state-level ACLUs are interested in this situation, and possibly the national ACLU.

The Balboa Park and Fiesta Island lawsuits weren't triggered because the city wanted to break the leases - the city resisted breaking the leases and defended them. Since Judge Jones' decisions, the city has agreed to stop defending the leases and switch to seeking their termination as part of an agreement with the ACLU to remove the city from further litigation. THAT is the lease-breaking that the BSA is now countersuing for, but that's an entirely new lawsuit which has not been ruled on. Here's the Balboa Park decision: http://ACLUSanDiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf Here's the Fiesta Island decision: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Fiesta_Park_Order-0404.pdf Here are documents for both the BSA's new countersuit against San Diego (BSA v. San Diego) and the above case (Barnes-Wallace v. BSA): http://www.bsalegal.org/document-117.htm

Like I said, the original lawsuit (which isn't over yet) wasn't about breaking the lease, it was over renewing the lease. Saying "That case was about San Diego breaking the lease" is wrong, because the only decision rendered so far concerning the Balboa Park lease is the ACLU lawsuit against the renewal, not the BSA lawsuit against San Diego filing to break the lease. There has been no decision of any kind on the BSA lawsuit yet, so the phrase "that case WAS about" only makes sense if it refers to the ACLU lawsuit. I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision - he based his ruling on the fact that the BSA was the only organization that was considered to lease that part of Balboa Park. No other organizations were given the opportunity to lease the land. The judge also found that the BSA was a religious organization, because the BSA has stated in other court proceedings that it is a religious organization. That's enough to invalidate the lease. The city council's decision to not appeal the decision was partly the result of the BSA not telling the city council that they were a religious organization. It apparently came as something as a shock to the San Diego attorneys, as their defense of the lease as legal was partly based on their arguing that the BSA was NOT a religious organization.