Merlyn_LeRoy

Here's a dishonest chapter from that Hoover article: "After Dale, the question arose of what, if anything, restive governments at all levels could do to bring the Scouts to heel. A number of civil liberties and gay rights organizations took this position: “While organizations are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they choose, groups that act upon and instill disrespect and prejudice toward others have no right to special benefits or support from the government.†The purpose of this initiative was to deny the Scouts access to public facilities such as schools and parks for conducting their activities until they were prepared to admit gays." As the ACLU clearly stated, they are against "special benefits or support from the government", which is NOT "access".

To be as "inclusive as possible", don't have ANY religious requirements. The very fact that the BSA has religious requirements means that some people won't meet them and be excluded. So "inclusive as possible" is nonsense. And if your unchangable source of morality never changes, why was slavery acceptable in the past but not now? Why do Christians disagree about homosexuality? Don't they all have the same unchangable god? Should gays be put to death, as your god demands? That's a pretty big stick. By the way, I can think of few things more narcissistic than believing the creator of the entire universe is a personal friend.

It seems you've been reduced to either being an idiot, or pretending to be an idiot. I won't bother trying to decipher which.

"Impossible, God is unchangable." There you go again, telling other people what their god MUST be like, because YOU insist on what THEIR theology MUST BE. "That's not god" Yes, it is. Other people can have gods whose minds are changed by humans. Who resigned and made you Pope? "that's the alter ego trying to beef up insecurities caused from being raised by angry atheist fathers." You forgot "cheapskate Jews" and "lazy blacks" in your insulting stereotype.

>>Yes, how is a made-up god an "untouchable source of moral direction" when the scout can just change his god's mind the next day?<< "God's mind didn't change, the scout's understanding of god's wisdom changed from his daily experiences of life." No, it's MY example. If you want a scout to use YOUR example, you need to create your own, new, example. In MY example, the scout changes his god's mind the next day. And that's just fine with the BSA, apparently. YOU again are trying to impose an "unchangable" god, because that fits YOUR theology; you can't impose YOUR restrictions on OTHER PEOPLE'S gods. Other people can have gods whose minds get changed by humans, and you can't say otherwise. Get your own god.

Yes, how is a made-up god an "untouchable source of moral direction" when the scout can just change his god's mind the next day? By the way, red is not red when it's moving towards you at 80,000 km/s, then it's shifted to blue.

"How is that different from my morning coffee analogy?" Besides entirely? "Hey Merlyn, the BSA doesn't care whose god the scout uses, even if he make it up along the way. It's that simple" Which means your excuse for why the BSA excludes atheists (they don't have an "untouchable source of moral direction") doesn't work, because, as you yourself say, the BSA allows scouts who make up a god along the way. So it's OK to make up a god and morals, just not OK to skip the imaginary middleman and make up morals. But that still contradicts your initial reason for the BSA's exclusion of atheists. You're now admitting that a scout can make up a god, instead of requiring an "untouchable source of moral direction". "I'm sure you are, but that comment wasn't a reference to you the athiest, it was in reference to NJ who believes god created the universe and then packed out. Does that make NJ a diest?" I'd call him that, but it's probably better to ask him, not me. But NJCubScouter didn't say his god was incapable of a relationship with man, either.

PS: By the way, the BSA doesn't require that the god a scout believes in has created the universe, for that matter. As far as I can tell, the BSA has NO requirements or properties of any kind that a god must meet in order to be acceptable. (for some reason, I can't add this to my previous comment; the editor fails saying I exceeded the time limit to change the title .. ?)

Sorry Eagledad, NJCubScouter had it right. "what he is saying is the BSA is hypocritical to give God all the credit when some foks just make it up during their morning coffee and pass it off as god's." You still aren't getting it; I'm not addressing the BSA, I'm addressing YOUR rationalization for the BSA's exclusion of atheists, which can't be right because the BSA doesn't exclude other people for the same reasons -- only atheists. "Admittedly I don’t understand how someone can claim god was powerful enough to create the universe but is incapable of a relationship with man" Uh, nobody said "incapable". I'm capable of sticking peanuts up my nose, I just don't have any reason to do so. Some people believe in gods that don't CARE about humans, or have a nonintervention policy, or any number of other reasons not to interact with humans in any way. Yet people who believe in such gods are still OK by BSA standards, so your suggested reason for excluding atheists doesn't hold water.

Eagledad, a Deist who believes in a god that has NOTHING to do with humanity has to make up his own morals just like an atheist. And as for a rock, the BSA doesn't require that the scout believes the rock to be omnipotent, either -- that's a requirement YOU are adding to support your false reasoning. "God is the perfect creator of all things and unchanging" That's YOUR god, that's not what the BSA requires. Stop adding nonexistent requirements. "so by default he is the final authority on morality" Again, that's YOUR god, a Deist's god can be COMPLETELY UNCONCERNED about morals, or even not be aware that humans exist at all. You continue to make up requirements for other people's gods to support your false reasoning. "Atheist have no moral source leaving them to make it up as they go along." EXACTLY like a Deist. So why aren't Deists rejected? "Without God, morality defaults to the guy with the biggest stick." No, that's not morality, that's just an enforcer, and your god is the typical theistic enforcer with the biggest stick possible. Or do you deny hell?

Second Class, Eagledad suggested an obviously false "reason" for excluding atheists; it's obviously false because some theists who are acceptable to the BSA can derive and have morals that are exactly the same as an atheist, yet they are not rejected. It's like someone defending a club that excludes Jews by saying it's because they can't eat bacon, but the same club admits Muslims and vegetarians, neither of which eats bacon either, which shows that the "reason" for excluding Jews is nonsensical. The BSA excludes atheists for no reason except animus towards atheists; it can't have anything to do with an atheist's morals because they allow other people who are theists who can have identically-derived morals. Eagledad's reason is just a non-excuse for discriminating against atheists.

>>You have no answer to that.

"That is the direct answer to your direct question and peace in the world." That must be why religious people never go to war against each other. BWAHAHAHAHA! "Ah Merlyn, you're on a boat without a rudder at the mercy of moralities turbulent waters." Well no, but you're missing my point entirely. A Deist is perfectly acceptable to the BSA, and a Deist or a scout who takes his god to be "a rock or a stream" can make up his morality just like an atheist can. They have no rudder either, yet somehow you don't say they aren't fit for the BSA. You have no answer to that.

I don't have one. But for that matter, Deists are (presumably still) allowed to be members, as well as scouts who consider their god to be, quote, "A rock or a stream". Now, since both of these scouts have acceptable religious views, and both could, as part of their religious outlook, make up their own moral principles, in what way are these morals an "untouchable source of moral direction"? And by the way Eagledad, if the BSA uses my god and it's also an "untouchable source of moral direction", then there should be definite answers to these questions: 1) is polygamy moral? 2) is eating bacon moral? 3) is gay marriage moral? Feel free to post definite answers that must agree with all BSA members.

Again you missed the point skeptic; the BSA insisted on kicking out gays, even when the members of that unit wanted to keep them. The BSA is ONLY being treated the SAME way they treated others.

You know, if the BSA hadn't been so pigheaded to begin with, maybe this would have never been an issue. After all, everyone in Dale's unit wanted him to stay, but the BSA forced him out. I really have NO sympathy.

So, does this god allow polygamy? Does it allow Jews to eat bacon? If the BSA used a god, these questions would have answers, but they don't. The BSA is fine if your god allows polygamy or prohibits it. That certainly can't be an "untouchable source of moral direction". That's directionless.

Until the BSA finds out, then they're kicked out. "Without some untouchable source of moral direction, there would be no platform to build a program of moral decision making." The BSA DOESN'T USE ONE. They allow religions that have mutually contradictory moral directives. Is polygamy moral? Is eating bacon allowed?

Isaac Asimov already did that; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

Copy-pasting adds the unparsed squarebracket-HTML; you can re-edit your old post and remove it.

My groundhog predicts 16 more weeks of bickering.

Adding gods doesn't inprove morality, they are just absolute authority lynchpins that stymie any real debate. I don't see anyone arguing that slavery is moral, or that rape victims ought to be compelled to marry their rapists (or be killed if they didn't cry out), but Jehovah certainly never showed up to decide to change these rules; humans decided these particular rules are actually immoral and no longer follow them. Religious rules allow a Saudi cleric to rape and torture his own 5-year-old daughter to death, but since fathers can't be prosecuted for murder of their own children in Saudi Arabia, he only has to pay a fine: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-preacher-who-raped-and-tortured-his-five-yearold-daughter-to-death-is-released-after-paying-blood-money-8480440.html Ain't religious morality great?

This part is pretty strange: “This right [to maintain anti-gay membership policies] was challenged in 2000 and the BSA prevailed in a narrow 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision,†the memo reads, citing the 2000 Supreme Court case, BSA v. Dale. “If a similar challenge were heard in today’s Court, it is nearly certain that the BSA would lose its right to uphold the current policy, and the decision would dictate a change at every level of the organization.†The above was one of the rationales to change to a local option, but it doesn't look like it was the opinion of a lawyer. First, religious discrimination is much less likely to pass muster at the federal level, because that's subject to the first amendment and federal law, while it's mostly state statutes and some iffy constitutional arguments for sexual orientation discrimination, yet the BSA's chances at losing a religious discrimination challenge isn't even mentioned. Second, the BSA has been forced to act much more like a real private organization post-Dale by losing charters to government entities, losing various grants, and other public largess.

"Should we open the program to devil worshipers?" As far as I can tell, it's already open to them. There are a few Scientology units, at least (I'd much prefer satanists). "In fact, why even require a belief in God at all" I don't know why the BSA requires it; as it stands now, their religious requirement is completely hollow, since there aren't any theological requirements to go along with it. As for the same freedoms you have, you can also use your free speech rights to: 3) Try to persuade the organization to change.

It's not completely off-topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_and_sexual_orientation