Merlyn_LeRoy

I wrote earlier: "And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments." adrianvs writes: I understand your position completely. No, you really don't, or you wouldn't have misunderstood it so completely at first. And if you don't think my point-of-view regarding government sponsorship of BSA units holds more weight than yours, we'll just have to wait and see; so far, all cases that I know of have resulted in the government agency dropping sponsorship instead of even trying to defend it.

adrianvs writes: And where have I demonstrated ignorance of science? In answer to my question: "Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can." You said this: All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies. Now, your arguments aren't very coherent, but since I asked for an example of a public school running a group that excludes members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and you answered me with "all science clubs routinesly practice de facto discrimination", you seemed to be saying that science clubs practice such exclusion - that is, science clubs actually refuse membership to students who don't meet certain religious criteria (since that is what I was asking for, and that's how you responded). Of course, you haven't given any examples of students being refused membership in science clubs. That, coupled with the usual "science is your god" idiocy leads me to conclude that you don't know much about science. And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments.

adrianvs writes: All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies. I see you have no examples of public schools refusing membership to any student because of that student's religious views. Sorry, your handwaving arguments aren't real examples. ... If I taught a semester course on Neil Armstrong and failed to mention the moon, one would rightly assume that I was teaching something objective with my omission. Likewise, if I were to teach history and consistently omit the positive contributions of a particular race or gender, there would be a justified outrage. As it stands, however, curricula consistently highlight (or create) only the negative contributions of particular faiths or ideologies in their survey of history. In these situations, the consistently describe the opposing individuals or ideologies in a positive light. If this were done for a particular race (even if it were done only through the use of illustrative examples), it would be said that the teacher was teaching pragmatic racism. This is what I mean by pragmatic atheism, and it does not bother you in the least. So far, you still have no actual examples, nor are your complaints very specific. You also haven't shown how denegrating faiths or ideologies is "teaching pragmatic atheism". So your only problem with the BSA's relationship to the schools is the nominal "own and operate clause?" I wouldn't describe it as "nominal"; the charter partner owns and operates its BSA unit. Public schools can't own & operate youth groups that have religious requirements to join. So if the schools simply relinquished control over the units and ownership of the property, and stopped paying charter fees, then there would not be a problem? Most interesting. The schools would stop being sponsors; the property still belongs to the school and remains with the school. They wouldn't "relinquish control", they would stop chartering the unit -- of course, a private organization that CAN discriminate could sponsor a similar unit. This would be the same situation as any other BSA unit sponsored by a private organization; they can meet in the schools on the same basis as any other outside organization. You would still demand that the teachers continue to teach pragmatic atheism, though.. Correct me if I am wrong.. If by "pragmatic atheism" you mean science, then yes, of course. What makes you assume that I belong to a religion? Mostly your ignorance about science.

In some places this seems to be happening, but the BSA should, just to be honest, not issue any charters to government agencies. Every such charter is a potential lawsuit; I would certainly sue both the government agency AND the BSA if I was kicked out of a government-sponsored youth group because I didn't have the "right" religious views. I don't think PTAs would be an acceptable charter partner, as most public schools seem to have a single, recognized PTA with a special relationship with the school, and it wouldn't be any more acceptable to have a PTA sponsor a BSA unit than for the PTA to run a youth group that excludes Catholics.

adrianvs writes: Public universities and high schools sponsor religiously exclusive organizations all the time. They don't "own and operate" youth groups that exclude people on the basis of their religious views. Feel free to give actual examples of what you're talking about. Remember, the charter partner of a BSA unit "owns and operates" it, according to the BSA's website. The charter partner approves all leadership for the unit. Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can. Remember, a school that allows STUDENTS to create their own student groups isn't an example of the above. The issue is whether theists have the right to public facilites as atheists do. And vice-versa. A public school that sponsors a scout unit is closed to atheists, and as a public school, they can't do that. Merlyn has no problem with public school teachers being paid with public funds to preach pragmatic atheism, Well, now you're just lying about my opinion. I'm against public schoolteachers promoting atheism OR theism. However, I suspect your "pragmatic atheism" refers to teachers teaching science without mentioning your particular god, which isn't the same thing as teaching atheism. but when civic theist groups meet on PUBLIC school property after hours without undo fee, he cries foul. Again, you're lying about my opinion. If schools have their facilities open to the public and don't charge fees, anyone can use them on an equal basis. What religion do you belong to that presumably allows you to lie about atheists, anyway? I find it very obnoxious when people deliberately lie about what my opinion actually is. If you don't know, ASK. If you just make something up that agrees with your own prejudices instead of finding out what my opinion actually is, I will call you a liar. Got that?

mk9750 writes: As to whethter the Government should sponsor / charter / recognize organizations that discriminate, they do all the time! I'm talking about being a "charter partner" for a BSA unit; the BSA website says that the charter partner "owns and operates" its BSA unit. That is, a public school chartering a cub scout pack is owning and operating a youth group that discriminates on the basis of religious belief, which public schools can't do. ... Would the Red Cross hand me money like they do victims of natural disasters? I'm not suggesting they should, but the fact that they treat one class of people differently (non - victims) than another class is discrimination. We all discriminate. And you're doing what's called "equivocating", calling all discrimination the same, which isn't true. Would you use your argument to argue that it's OK for public schools to run "whites only" youth groups? How about youth groups that Catholics can't join? The government CAN discriminate on all kinds of criteria; however, public schools can't run youth groups that exclude students on the basis of their religious beliefs, and any public school sponsoring a BSA troop is doing exactly that. ... It's easy to say racial discrimination is wrong, as are many of the other discriminations ennumerated by the government. I don't think it's so easy for other types. It's also easy to say religious discrimination by the government is wrong; racial discrimination is covered by legislation, while religious discrimination is covered by both the same legislation AND the first amendment, so religious discrimination is even harder to get away with. I see that while you're glad I recognize discrimination against the BSA, you apparently see nothing wrong with a public school owning & operating a BSA unit that excludes atheist students. Would you see nothing wrong with a public school running a youth group that excludes Jews?

OGE has it right, mk9750. But you didn't answer my question about GOVERNMENT AGENCIES chartering scout troops. Do you think a public school can own & operate a youth group that excludes students based on their religious views? And you didn't read the Balboa park decision; one of the main reasons the judge struck down the lease extension is that it HADN'T been negotiated or open to bidding by other groups.

Why are you people surprised? I've always advocated that the BSA be treated FAIRLY by the government for what it is - a private, discriminatory organization. Private, discriminatory organizations can use public property, but the government can't give them special deals or sponsor Scout troops. But how many of you complained about the Balboa Park decision?

Would you earn MY respect and agree that government agencies like public school can't sponsor Boy Scout troops because the government can't discriminate against gays and atheists?

Actually, this is a fairly rare case of genuine discrimination against the Boy Scouts; most of the other cases (Balboa park, Cradle of Liberty council HQ, etc) are cases where the BSA is losing some sort of special treatment.

Just a couple of weeks ago, half the Tampa city council walked out rather than hear an atheist give the opening remarks, which is a good bit more thin-skinned than a 16-year-old who doesn't pray describing sitting through prayers as "rather annoying." At least the kid was better behaved than the city council.

Packsaddle writes: But what Greg says is not necessarily the final say unless he is the BSA equivalent of a dictator. He is THE official BSA spokesman, and has been for years. He's the media liason for official BSA statements of public policy. About the only more authoritive source of BSA policy would be court statements given by BSA officials under council of BSA national's lawyers (where they consistenty state that atheists can't be members, with no provision for e.g. Buddhists who may be atheists).

I think the BSA is extremely ignorant on the subject of religion; look at what the official BSA spokesman, Gregg Shields, has said: http://www.capital.net/~phuston/scouts.html ... The Bahai, Hindu, Islamic and Zoroastrian faiths all co-exist. "I don't know if a Hindu should say 'I will do my duty to God and my country...' or if he should pluralize it?" I asked Gregg Shields. "As I said the Boy Scouts don't try to interpret God. We simply ask that a scout and his leaders have a belief in God. So Hindu certainly could fulfill that need, " he replied unaware there is no such entity as "Hindu", Hindus instead worshipping a wide variety of deities. How do the Scouts handle Buddhism, where there is no creator deity? (and is the Buddhist ideal of enlightened detachment really the same thing as "reverence"?) "He believes in a supreme being, and that.. that is up to his interpretation," said Shields speaking innacurately and on the record. ... And the BSA doesn't seem to allow just "religion" to be sufficient for membership; here's a 1998 letter to the Unitarian-Universalists: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/scouts_to_uua.html ... Boy Scouts is not a secular organization as stated in Religion in Life; Boy Scouts is an ecumenical organization which requires belief in God and acknowledgement of duty to God by its members. ... So I think the BSA will kick out any Buddhist members that they discover don't believe in gods, just as they've told the UUs.

FOG writes: I don't know about that. We're tolerant of all religions, we just don't tolerate no relegion at all. That's not what the BSA says; they say you have to believe in at least one god, and have a 'duty to god'. If you subscribe to a religion that doesn't require belief in gods (such as some forms of Buddhism) and do not believe in at least one god, you can't be a member, according to the official statements of the BSA. There's no membership exemption for people who follow a religion while being atheists.

A rather worthless award coming from an organization that practices religious discrimination, don't you think? Kind of like an organization that excludes Australian Aboriginals having a racial tolerance award.

scoutingagain writes: I read this weekend about a website called Faith-o-matic or some such name. You might be thinking of belief-o-matic, though it only has 27 classifications of belief in the quiz: http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

eisely writes: In extreme situations we want to exclude some people, like known members of the Klu Klux Klan. But instead of a blacklist of specific organizations, the ABA has general rules, like not belonging to organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, because it's a matter of general ethical principles. If "sexual orientation" is added, the Boy Scouts will be excluded automatically because that organization doesn't meet the ABA's ethical standards. It's interesting to note that judges in California can't join the KKK, but CAN join the Klan Youth Corps, because the California rules specifically exclude all youth organizations from their rules on judges belonging to discriminatory organizations (which was done solely for the BSA, of course).

Ed writes: My point, Merlyn, is a Christian group can do exactly what the Islamic group is doing & people like you will try to stop it! No, Ed, now you're lying. People like me will argue for everyone being treated EQUALLY. And I can't help noticing that you have no REAL EXAMPLES. You keep making up imaginary situations where someone MIGHT abridge the rights of Christians, while simultaneously whining about actual Muslims being treated EQUALLY in Michigan as if that's something shameful. And then you dishonestly state that "people like me" would try to stop Christians being treated the same as the Muslims in this situation. You're the one trying to "spin" the situation, by not owning up to your earlier complaints over how a mosque got special treatment (which turns out to be equal treatment), and by not using real examples of discrimination against Christians but instead making up straw man arguments where "people like me" would supposedly oppress Christians instead of treating them equally. And, Ed, I hardly hate "Christians" as a class, being married to one for over 15 years.

I call you ineducable, Ed, because you've demonstrated that in this forum. It's been pointed out to you many times by me and others that the Michigan mosque is subject to the SAME noise laws as everyone else, yet you keep bringing it up as a supposed example of unequal treatment. You say "freedom of religion is freedom of all religion," yet you keep using an example where one religion is being treated the SAME as all other religions as if it's a counterexample! And that's why I call you ineducable.

Ed writes: Seems a little odd, though, that when the Islam temple had a call to prayer announced over a loudspeaker in a town that none of these questions you are posing me were posed of them! Ed, I realize you're ineducable, but just for the other people reading this thread: 1) The mosque asked permission from the city council. 2) in response, the city council passed an amendment to the city's noise ordinance. Previously, houses of worship were COMPLETELY EXEMPT from the noise ordinance; the council changed the law specifically to have the mosque subject to the SAME noise limits as everyone else. Without such a change, the mosque could have made as much noise as they liked. 3) Later, a popular vote on the issue passed 55%-45% in favor of allowing the call to prayer. Now Ed, I realize that you have no comprehension of what religious freedom means; you can only see Christians vs. everyone else as a zero-sum game, where any benefit to any non-Christian religious group MUST mean that Christians are being discriminated against, somehow. Your continued ignorant harping on the mosque in Hamtramck shows that, and your attitude is reprehensible. The mosque is subject to the SAME laws as all other churches, yet that isn't good enough for you; you, apparently, think other people's religions must be subject to laws that restrict them, while your religion must receive government favoritism. And EVERY time you bring this mosque up, you reveal how you do not care about other people's religious rights.

I know a lot of troops & districts ignore the BSA's discrimination, but it's unusual to see it stated in print: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1091879785213030.xml ... Likewise, many boys aren't accustomed to beginning a meal with grace. Scouts have drawn criticism in recent years for excluding atheists from leadership ranks, but McDonald says Scouts with a variety of religious beliefs -- and even those with none -- attend the camp. "If a child here has no belief or is struggling, it doesn't affect anything," McDonald says. ...

So..... you're against private organizations having high moral standards for its members?

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-08062004-344147.html ABA May Bar Judges From Anti-Gay Groups ByGINA HOLLAND The Associated Press ATLANTA - Judges are on the front line of battles over legal rights for same-sex couples and should never belong to an organization that discriminates against gays, supporters of a proposed change to American Bar Association ethics rules argued Friday. Judges are already prohibited from joining clubs that discriminate based on race or sex. An ABA panel is debating whether to make groups that discriminate against gays off limits as well. The ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' group with more than 400,000 members, writes conduct rules for judges and lawyers. States and federal courts generally adopt them, with some changes. It is not known how many judges participate in groups such as the Boy Scouts that have policies against hiring gays or having homosexual leaders, or some veterans groups that restrict membership to heterosexuals. The ABA held an all-day public hearing Friday on proposed judicial ethics changes during the association's summer meeting, which runs through Tuesday. Rules on gifts judges may accept and judges' involvement in fund-raisers may also be changed. The ABA is not expected to vote on any changes until next year. It would be the first overhaul of the rules in more than a decade, and any changes eventually could affect thousands of judges. ...

Packsaddle writes: Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there. Yep; try imagining the following with half the white town council walking out on a black speaker, or half the Christian town council walking out on a Jewish speaker: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/30/Hillsborough/Council_splits_on_ath.shtml TAMPA - The City Council's opening invocation is usually a quiet moment of peace. People from all faiths bow heads to hear pastors, rabbis and even poets offer some inspiration. But Thursday, three council members walked out rather than hear an invocation from a man who doesn't believe in God. Council members Kevin White, Mary Alvarez and Rose Ferlita left their seats rather than listen to Michael R. Harvey, a member of Atheists of Florida who had been invited by council member John Dingfelder to offer the invocation. Even before Harvey began to speak, White was pushing to cancel the invocation. These are sacred moments that refer to a supreme being, White said, and this speaker is an atheist. "We have never had people of an atheist group represent Americans," White said. "And I don't think it is appropriate in this setting." White's motion to cancel the invocation failed 2-4, supported only by him and Alvarez. She called White "very brave" for making the effort. "I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being," she said. Ferlita voted to allow the invocation go on, but also walked out. "I think this is sending us in the wrong direction," Ferlita said. Mayor Pam Iorio, who did not attend the council meeting, said later that the invocation should be reserved for speakers who invoke God. She would not say whether she would have walked out. "I certainly don't agree with having an atheist come for the invocation," she said. "I think the invocation is a time for the council to start their day with an expression of faith." ...

I'll ignore all the other mistakes and logical fallacies and just point out that "Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe" (the supreme court case that struck down prayers before high school football games) was brought to court by a Mormon and a Catholic family who did not do it to remove god from society, but to stop their public school from infringing on their religious rights by having a prayer before every football game. Also note that the case is "vs. Doe"; the families filed anonymously because they wanted to avoid intimidation and harassment from people who wanted the school to keep pushing religion. Here's the 6-3 decision: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html Why do you need the government to support your religion, anyway? Can't it survive without the government propping it up? "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Ben Franklin