Merlyn_LeRoy

>If you go to Pack 4567's website and look at their bylaws, you will see that National BSA policies have precedence over any of theirs. So yes they can exclude athiests. If you'll look at their web site, you'll see that they're chartered by the US military, which is constitutionally restricted from running a "no atheists" youth group. No, they can't exclude atheists; they will have to find a chartering partner that can legally discriminate against atheists. Just as an example, do you think the US military could run a "no Jews" youth group by chartering through an organization that excludes Jews?

Rooster7 said: >Merlyn, I knew it wasn't going to be too long before you jumped in here. Can't say I'm happy to hear from you. Nothing to say about the BSA's dishonesty in chartering units to government agencies? Nothing to say about Glen Schmidt's obvious bigotry? Perhaps one day you'll share a bond with your fellow human beings.

Two of the units in the Chief Seattle council (Orca district) are Pack 4567 and Troop 1567, both sponsored by the Naval Submarine Base, Bangor. These units are chartered by the US military and cannot exclude atheists; ask Brad Farmer and the other BSA execs if they expect the US government to practice unlawful religious discrimination on their behalf. (see http://members.doubleknot.com/Pack4567/about/aboutus.html ) The Chief Seattle council also runs Learning for Life, a youth program offered to public schools to teach ethics. Ask them if they teach this in their public school ethics course: "Anybody that doesn't believe in god isn't a good citizen, and that if an atheist found a wallet on the ground they would pick it up, plunder the money and throw the wallet back on the ground." --Glen Schmidt, Chief Seattle Dist. Comm. Chair

Firstpusk, Merlyn, and LV, Either you guys don't get it, or you're playing dumb just to get a rise out of ScoutParent. She's not defending racists' theories. She's suggesting, and quite frankly I think she's very astute in her observation, that if you accept evolution, then you have to apply it to all creatures including human beings. *I* certainly have been; when asked which species or subspecies of human is superior, I pointed out that humans are all the SAME species (homo sapiens) and subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens), so the question doesn't make sense. If people are going to USE scientific terms like "species", I'm going to insist that it be used CORRECTLY. All humans ARE classified as the same species and subspecies - if you don't like it, that isn't my problem.

Merlyn, are the different groups of humans all in the same species and subspecies, scientifically speaking? What about the Australian Aboriginals? Where do they fit into the evolutionary tree? They're all homo sapiens sapiens. Do you think Aborigines can't have viable offspring with non-Aboriginals or something? Why do you think humans aren't one species? Are you familiar with the idea that some humans have higher intelligence than others? What is the scientific explanation for the differing levels of intelligence? Do you agree that someone who has an iq of 170 has more reasoning ability than someone who has an iq of 100? Intelligence isn't a one-dimensional quality, but you question is pointless; individuals can vary greatly, but that doesn't make other humans a different species, because that isn't the definition of "species". Merlyn what macroevolution have evolutionary scientists actually observed or recreated in the laboratory? What evidence beyond looking at old bones do they actually have on their side? Could you site specific evidence that evolution does occur in humans? Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719 Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760. Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363. What specific contributions have evolutionary scientists been attributed with in the areas of medicine and biology? Biology: the entire field post-Darwin. It's like asking how useful has the periodic table of the elements been to chemistry. Medicine: artificially evolved enzymes, for one example. Merlyn even if you found you didn't understand or agree with the Bible, it is considered a great collection of literature so on a purely academic level, it is great reading. You really should give it a thorough reading; otherwise it isn't really fair for you to try to use it for arguing your case. I haven't been. Now as far as the question about flat earth theorists, I don't know any to ask, I thought you did because you always refer to them. I find no reason to believe that they were not misinterpretting scripture--that in itself does not discredit Biblical teachings. I wasn't using them to discredit biblical teachings, I was using them to show that, if people want science to be taught as to not conflict with their religious views, you can't teach much of anything. Flat earthers have just as much right as you to expect school science classes to not teach something in conflict with their religious views.

Since you're a reasonable intelligent person why don't you take a chance and read the Bible through once? What could it hurt? At least you would see the perspective that you are arguing against. I'm familiar enough with it; there are any number of copies on the web. I don't see much reason to read bronze-age mythology. Now I'm kind of curious what you have observed evolve? Could you site specific examples of plants, animals or humans that you have personally observed evolving? Me, personally? None. I have also never been to China, nor have I ever split an atom. But you do realize all of these are well established by repeated observation. Also, I posed a question for you on human evolution the other day: Which human race is genetically superior to the others? There's only one human race. I asked you what scientific contributions creationists have made; do you know of any? Merlyn, I don't find any substantiation for the flat earth theory in the Bible--do you have a book, chapter and verse for me to refer to? Why are you asking me? Ask some flat earthers, or look up their web sites yourself.

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were obligated to share your viewpoint of reality with us. I certainly didn't intend for you to think that! I was just inviting you to give an alternate view point so we as rational adult human beings could view two sides to the ideas presented. I don't mind the question, I was only stating that pointing out flaws in someone's argument stands on its own, it doesn't depend on having an alternate explanation. So let me ask it a different way, Merlyn, what do you think emotions are? Do you have any thoughts on this subject? They're a cmonbination of brain states and your endocrine system. Now, for those who argue that emotions have some spiritual connection, why can brain injuries affect a person's emotional personality? Why do manic-depressives change their emotional state after taking lithium? Why do other drugs or hormonal changes affect emotions? It's like saying the brain doesn't really think; if thinking isn't the result of brain states, what is all that brain activity doing? Why does poking an electride into certain parts trigger memories? What's left for the spiritual side to DO? It's like saying angels move planets around, but when Newton's laws are shown to move them, what's left for the angels to do? The other thing that I was hoping you would answer for us is what part of the theory of evolution did you find compelling? Which particular idea caused you to know it was true? It explains what's observed, and it's useful in developing modern biology and medicine. What new discoveries have creationists come up with? What medicines are developed using the creation model? One more quick question; have you ever studied the Bible (as an adult)? Not really, no. It's got talking animals in it.

Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns. Well, yes - there is some truth to that statement. If scientists disregard the possibly of leprechauns without any analysis, then any theory involving leprechauns will be discarded without thought as well. You don't even understand the analogy; I didn't say the scientists disregarded the possibility, I said the leprechaun advocate insisted that the scientists first had to actually believe in leprechauns before being able to examine the theory "objectively". You seem to be assuming that anything short of genuine belief constitutes "disregarding without thought", which is simply wrong. That's just what you're insisting regarding gods. As I noted in my first post, emotions are derived from spiritual inspiration (good and bad). Can I prove it? Yes, but not by scientific method. Like I said, you aren't dealing with science. Now, I realize that you feel no sense of obligation to respond to my assertions, but please try to indulge me. You didn't understand my earlier remark. ScoutParent seemed to think I should be able to offer an explanation of reality because I criticized yours; I was just pointing out that pointing out flaws in someone else's argument doesn't obligate the critic to put forward a replacement argument. How does an atheist explain emotions? Given that there are millions of atheists, it doesn't make much sense to ask how "an atheist" explains it, unless you've taken a poll or something. If it is as I have already explained (simple chemical reactions), why not just say so? Why not? It's true enough; and music is just simple sound waves. Perhaps you recognize how silly it is to demean emotions as such, and to reduce the human race to the status of biological machines. I don't think it's demeaning; I think it's silly to tack on an invisible spiritual world that somehow, magically gives emotions "meaning". Since music can give people emotional experiences, is there some spiritual component to sound waves that gives music its emotional force?

"It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like." what is reality like then Merlyn? could you explain it please? I never claimed I could explain reality; I was objecting to rooster7's assumptions that a god has to exist based solely on his philosophical distaste for a godless universe. Pointing out flaws in his argument doesn't obligate me to offer any counterexplanations; his argument is still flawed.

Before one can address the theory of creationism, one needs to come to grips with the "God theory". That is to say, before scientists and anyone else can examine creationism objectively, they need to recognize the existence of God. Creationism isn't science, then. Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns. If you believe that God does not exist, then you need to recognize and admit these truths: Emotions are meaningless. Love, hate, envy, joy, peace, etc. are all emotions that occur because of a chemical reaction in the brain. Emotions are not derived spiritually because the spiritual world does not exist. You're just assuming your conclusions again. You're assuming emotions that aren't the result of a magical spiritual world are meaningless, but you give no indication why, nor do you explain how the existence of a spiritual world makes emotions meaningful. It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like. And the very line of your argument indicates that you are making an emotional argument, not a logical argument; you're trying to argue for the existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong. If an astronomer calculated that an asteroid was about to hit the earth, you can't argue against his conclusions based on the fact that you don't like the consequences.

I suppose that means that Assimov, a Biology professor as well as a sci-fi author, didn't understand the meaning of the word as well. No, all you've quoted Asimov as saying is that relativity is only a theory; that's quite true, relativity IS only a theory. But you haven't given the context where he used it. He was an atheist, by the way, and wrote an entire book explaining why creationism isn't science, and he even went into detail about what a theory is: Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory", giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the "Roquefort-cheese theory". A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally. For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on. All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be. Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth". BTW, not all facts are data but all data should be fact. Since speciation has been observed, how do you explain the fact of new species arising? Evolution has no problem with it, but creationism would suggest that gods are still sneaking around creating new creatures that are almost, but not quite, identical to currently existing creatures, yet are still different enough to prevent fertile offspring.

I think that you are confusing the common understanding of theory with the scientific understanding. Not really, I have degrees in Math, Physics and Mechanical Engineering. A postulate, hypothosis and a theory are all different animals. None are fact. Well, since firstpusk used the term correctly, and you used "only a theory" in the same way that nonscientific creationists use it ("theory" is as good as you'll ever get), I'd say he understands the term and you don't. Facts are data, not theories; theories are models that make predictions.

ScoutParent: What's your objection to government refunding school tax dollars to parents who chose not to use the government "atheist" schools in favor of private schools that fit more closely with their personal ideals? I don't remember voicing an objection; however, I wouldn't call it a "refund", since people with NO children also pay for public schools, and a family with 4 children in a public school isn't taxed more than a family with 1 child in the school. Further, your interpretation of the basis for the findings on the cases determining the constitutionality of teaching evolution and Creation as theories of evolution was inaccurate and misleading. Your claim might have a little weight if you would say exactly WHAT was inaccurate and/or misleading. What's your objection to groups having fellowship with people of similiar beliefs? None (assuming such a group isn't getting e.g. government funding, special access to public facilities, etc) Why don't you start some atheist organizations with the purported millions rather than disrupting? How is fighting for equal government treatment of atheists "disrupting"? Is this anything like what "outside agitators" did when promoting racial equality in the 60s? Rooster7, in reply to me "After all, official government statements saying that "gods are myths" aren't telling you what religion to follow, either. Constitutional in your view, right?" First, if our official government did proclaim all "gods are myths", it would be completely opposed to the beliefs and character of the founding fathers and their writings about government. So? I doubt many of the founding fathers would agree with current government campaigns to promote racial equality, given that so many of them owned slaves. In any case, I don't agree with your view that either is constitutional, though at least you're consistent.

But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing. NO, that's simply not true. The state can promote the belief in the existence of God. What they can't do is tell us which god to believe in, and/or require us to worship God in a particular way. Furthermore, based on the morality of our generation, I would say the state does have a compelling interest. Only because you're making the unnecessary and unstated assumption that belief in gods has something to do with morality. There's no reason to assume this. And, of course, I disagree with your blanket assertion that the government has the power to promote a belief in god; of course, if it does, it equally has the power to *discourage* a belief in god, and if the powers-that-be decide that god belief is something to be discouraged, you won't have a leg to stand on. After all, official government statements saying that "gods are myths" aren't telling you what religion to follow, either. Constitutional in your view, right?

I know how justices and judges are picked. Most, if not all political systems in this country are corrupt. Appointed judged are picked because the pickers like the way they do or will rule. Congress is hideously corrupt, they make rules that apply to everyone but them. They sell their votes, they barter their honor to stay in office. Local governments are constantly looking for ways to suck money out of the Federal government to promote empire building. I was all a good idea 225 years ago but it has gone awry. The government is no longer accessible to the people. So why do you want the government to promote religion?

"When the court has addressed this issue, they found that teaching creationism is not teaching science, but just teaching religion masquerading as science. They also found that the government's interest in teaching *real* science to students is a compelling state interest that is not being done to purposely ridicule or subvert students' religious views, which makes it quite legal for public schools to teach subjects that may, incidentally, contradict various religious teachings." Amazing how you can write that and find nothing wrong with it but continue to find objection to the word God in the pledge. The word God is not added to ridicule your nonbelief; it's just that there is a compelling state interest to continue to encourage it's usage. But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing. The pledge functioned just fine before 1954 when god was added, and it'll still function just fine after it's removed. Modern biology, on the other hand, is based on evolution; you can't teach modern biology without it, just as you can't teach how planets move without involving gravitational theory. If the idea of planets moving by themselves contradicts your religious view that angels push them around, that's not sufficient reason to stop teaching orbital mechanics.

slontwovvy wrote: Merlyn said earlier, "Of course, I think you're a good example of how the BSA encourages bigotry against atheists, just as Restricted clubs encouraged bigotry against Jews years ago. Good work." Slontwovvy, with no small amount of sarcasm..."Yep, that's the first thing I learned in all levels of BSA training--Gotta be bigoted against the atheists." I think you're looking for connections where there are none. I think the analogy is apt; some members of Restricted clubs didn't give a second thought to belonging to a club that explicitly excluded Jews. Would you, or anyone here belong to such a club today? Yet you belong to a club that explicitly excludes atheists, and when Zorn Packte suggested that atheists not have freedom of speech, nobody criticized him for it.

"Merlyn, as it stands now the public school system is reduced to teaching in totally secular terms, completely unfair to the nation's majority that have religious beliefs. We'll use your example of evolution, by ignoring creation, you are giving credence to the theory of evolution. Evolution is a direct contradition to many religious beliefs. Schools have no problem teaching ideas from naturalists and humanists so yes, they definitely should add ideas from other perspectives. A better solution yet would be for atheist organizations to stop fighting school vouchers so parents could send their children to the schools of their choice. What is your objection to each individual family choosing where to send their child? Certainly it isn't using tax dollars to promote religion if individuals have a choice. The information from nonbelieving groups would have you believe is that religious schools will indoctrinate and not teach. Teaching on a secular, humanistic, naturalistic, atheist level is a form of indoctrination, Merlyn. It just suits your agenda so you ignore it." ANWER THAT QUESTION, MERLYN. I did. Science isn't some free-for-all where anyone can come up with any ridiculous idea and have it accepted by whoever thinks it's "neat" - that's what religion does. There are a number of scientific teachings that go against various religious views, as I've already said. If you restrict science to only teach what's compatible with all possible religions, you've reduced it to nothing. You can't even teach the earth is round - there are "bible-believing" christians who insist it's against their religion. When the court has addressed this issue, they found that teaching creationism is not teaching science, but just teaching religion masquerading as science. They also found that the government's interest in teaching *real* science to students is a compelling state interest that is not being done to purposely ridicule or subvert students' religious views, which makes it quite legal for public schools to teach subjects that may, incidentally, contradict various religious teachings. Evolution isn't being taught to break down people's religious faith, it's being taught because it's where centuries of scientific investigation has lead. Astronomy doesn't exist to ridicule geocentrists (earth-as-center-of-universe), but the only place you'll find geocentrists being taken seriously nowadays are . . . at creationist symposiums! Yeah, that's REAL science. And again, I've never heard of a school teaching that gods don't exist, so they can't be teaching atheism. If the astronomy teacher teaches about Newton's law and the orbits of planets, is that teaching atheism? It's the same situation when the biology teacher teaches about evolution. Neither teacher mentions gods, neither teacher is teaching atheism; they are teaching science. And another poster: "Establish" means to start or found. So Congress can make no law regarding the starting or founding of a religion. "In God We Trust" on money has nothing to do with starting or founding. "The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." -- Justice Black, Everson v. Board of Education 1947

As Brian (aka Merlyn) slips into insanity, he begins to rant. Screaming "it's unconstitutional," he is led to the electroshock chamber for treatment. Doctors hope that a few blasts of high voltage will cure him of his delusion that he is a constitutional scholar. Well, let's see what I've said is unconstitutional: government promoting the majority's religion, and government teaching the majority's religion in schools. These have been struck down as unconstitutional for decades. Face it, Brian, the constitution means what it says despite what corrupt Justices have proclaimed. Ah, now it "means what it says" and, even though the supreme court doesn't agree, they must be "corrupt justices". The writers were intelligent men and if they didn't want the 10 commandments in the courthouse, they would have said so. They were intelligent men, and they did: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Not "an establishment of a religion", as if it only prohibits an official state religion. Have you read what Madison or Jefferson said about church & state? Do you realize that Madison (the man who wrote the first amendment) specifically addressed the subject of one of Dr. Newdow's recent lawsuits (federally paid congressional chaplains) and came to the same conclusion as Dr Newdow (that it's unconstitutional)?

Yes, you certainly are free to NONBELIEVE in anything you choose. What you can't do is try to impose that idea on the majority of people who disagree with you. You keep saying this, but you never come up with any examples. Atheists can try to convince others, but so can theists - you can't complain about equality. Merlyn it is a government by the people for the people so your argument is senseless. No, it's your argument that's senseless; you want the government to promote the religion of whatever the majority wants. That's unconstitutional. Merlyn, as it stands now the public school system is reduced to teaching in totally secular terms, completely unfair to the nation's majority that have religious beliefs. Boy, reduced to teaching in nonreligious terms, instead of teaching someone's particular religious tenets. How terrible. Again, you seem to want the government to teach the local majority religion in public schools. Again, that's unconstitutional. We'll use your example of evolution, by ignoring creation, you are giving credence to the theory of evolution. You realize that there are thousands of religious creation stories, don't you? Why should your particular religious views be taught as science? Again, if science has to "not teach" anything that goes against someone's religious views, science can't teach anything. There are still serious flat-earthers, so teaching the earth is round is out. Congratulations, you've made science worthless. Oh, and it doesn't surprise me at all that you apparently think states should have the right to prohibit all atheists from holding public office; it shows how antidemocratic your ideas really are.

I guess you don't understand that no where in the consitution is it expressed that you or any member of any religious group has a right to freedom from religon--just freedom of religion--the denial of all religious beliefs can not qualify as a religion. I guess you don't understand real religious freedom; I'm certainly free to NOT follow any religion, right? It would be unconstitutional to pass a law requiring that all citizens belong to some religion, right? It would be unconstitutional to pass a law requiring all citizens to believe in one (or more) gods, right? Oh, my religion is no religion--makes little sense Merlyn, surely you see that. Atheism is protected under the first amendment; Americans have just as much right to be atheists as you have to follow whatever religion you subscribe to. I'd say "surely you see that", but apparently, you don't. You honestly don't. Now, as to you "specific examples" of how atheists are infringing on religious rights: 1) It reduces our(our being believers in a diety/dieties) religious freedoms because part of BELIEVING as opposed to NONBELIEVING requires profession of such beliefs, Merlyn. Now, in this supposedly religiously tolerant world, it would seem that you would have become educated enough to know this. Or haven't you explored religions before stating that you believe in MAN above all else????? I seem to have missed where you cited cases where atheists are trying to prevent religious believers from professing their beliefs; the only cases I know about are where atheists are trying to prevent the government (which is NOT a person with rights) is trying to infringe on the religious rights of its citizens by promoting religion in some form. Religious believers (and atheists) have the same rights to promote their own beliefs using their own resources; neither has the "right" to use the force of government to promote their particular point of view or impose it on the population. You have just as much right to promote your religion as I do of promoting atheism. So your first "example" is bogus. Equal rights, right? 2) It allows public schools that we pay tax money to support to propagate ATHEIST, HUMANIST, NATURALIST views in areas of science, history, literature, etc. as absolute truths, an idea I strongly oppose. Well, science doesn't deal in "absolute truths", that's something religions usually are trying to sell. And history and literature even less so. Do you object to teaching the earth is round? There are sincere religious believers who insist it's flat because their interpretation of the bible says so. And again, exactly what views are you abscribing to atheism? About the only way a school could promote atheism is to explicitly teach that gods don't exist, and I've never heard of this happening in the US (while the promotion of theism does occur with some frequency). If you point to, say, evolution, I can point to quite a number of theists who have no problem with evolution. Remember, evolution doesn't say anything about gods. It can't be teaching atheism because it doesn't teach anything about gods. Some people used to believe that angels pushed the planets around; do we stop teaching astrophysics and Newton's laws to not infringe on these beliefs? Some native american religions teach that their people were always part of the land; do we stop teaching about the migration of humans to the americas some 12,000 years ago? If you want science to kowtow to ALL religious beliefs (and there's no reason that just YOUR religious beliefs deserve such "protection"), believe me, there's almost nothing left to teach. 3) It turns democracy into a headstand with the smallest groups controlling the majorities, no different than other world governments that dictate secular ideas in place of religion to the masses. Again, you aren't being specific, you're just ranting. Specific examples. Now, I'll give you a REAL example: Herb Silverman tried to become a Notary Public in North Carolina in 1993. There were over 33,000 applications around that time to become Notary Publics, and all were granted - except his. He's an atheist, and he refused the required god oath. North Carolina fought for 7 years, burning up over $100,000 in legal fees to prevent one atheist from becoming a Notary Public. North Carolina kept losing and kept appealing, and they finally lost for good. And why? Because, for some reason, they wanted to keep the clearly unconstitutional religious requirement for all North Carolina public offices. Now, I'd say a law against atheists holding public office and seven years of litigation count as government hostility to atheists. Herb didn't get to be a Notary Public until 1999 or 2000. Please continue to NONBELIEVE as you choose but try to see that your efforts to curtail our BELIEVING is against our religious freedoms. Tell Herb Silverman this.

Merlyn writes: "And exactly who is trying to take this away? Be specific; removing 'under god' from the pledge or official congressional chaplains does nothing to remove your religious rights." Why, your fellow non believers of course! From www.atheists.org: "We are aware that in legal issues concerning "religious liberty", there are those affected to have no religious beliefs whatsoever. American Atheist labors on behalf of the civil rights of these non-believers who defend the right to freedom from religion." And? How, exactly, does an atheist group defending the rights of atheists reduce your religious freedom? Again, BE SPECIFIC. I've read a number of websites concerning atheist issues recently to see what many of you (notice I said many so as to not hear hair splitting argument), do or don't believe. I found interesting how some atheist websites encourage teen age children of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims to denounce their family's religious values in favor of the atheist view point. Which, of course, is their right; they have the right, JUST AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE, to promote their point of view, right? Do you think it would be difficult for me to find, say, a Christian website that encourages children to denounce their family's religious values in favor of the Christian viewpoint? It's just silly to keep insisting that your intent is not to inhibit our basic right to worship as we choose. That isn't my intent; stop slandering me. Again, quote SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what you're referring to. Am I advocating that religion be outlawed? No; in fact that would be unconstitutional. Am I advocating that the government promote atheism? No; that too would be unconstitutional. A basic component of virtually any religious belief system is to be able to exemplify those beliefs in thought word and deed. Well, you just broke my ironymeter. First you complain about atheists trying to promote atheism (on their own initiative; they're not trying to get the government to promote atheism), and then you cry crocodile tears about how religious freedom entails being able to exemplify those beliefs. Apparently, that's a right you think atheists shouldn't have.

Why should we be tolerant of atheists? For the same reason you should be tolerant of Jews, or Hindus, or people with other religious opinions that differ from yours. Of course, I think you're a good example of how the BSA encourages bigotry against atheists, just as Restricted clubs encouraged bigotry against Jews years ago. Good work.

Venturer2002, you're right; you can't exclude religion from a person's life just because he/she is in school. That's exactly what atheists would like to have happen; remove all traces of God. Not exactly demonstrating tolerance to other people's views, is it? You'd have a point if what you were saying was true; however, seeing that you're just defaming atheists as a class, you're the one displaying intolerance. ... Now I know we'll hear more about the lemon law used to test it but even the justices refuse to embrace such nonsense anymore. The intent was clear in the myriad of documents still available that we were to be able to worship at the church of our choice but be able to worship! And exactly who is trying to take this away? Be specific; removing 'under god' from the pledge or official congressional chaplains does nothing to remove your religious rights. And as for those who say the original intent of the first amendment hasn't been followed, you might want to see what Madison wrote on the subject.

Some persons believe that if applied to matters of faith, this approach is indicative of atheism. However, atheism is another belief system in which the practitioner KNOWS that there is no deity. No, an atheist is just someone who isn't a theist. The a- prefix means "not", just like asymmetrical means "not symmetrical". If you're going to insist that "atheist" only describes people who are certain no gods exist, I'll insist that you apply the same standards to "theist", and not count anyone who has the least little doubt in THEIR god(s) existence as Christian or Muslim or whatever. Then 90% of people are classified as agnostic, and labels are worthless. As for scientists, check out nature from July 23, 1998. Here's the main results: BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD..1914...1933...1998 Personal belief................27.7........15.........7.0 Personal disbelief..........52.7........68.......72.2 Doubt or agnosticism.......20.9........17........20.8