Merlyn_LeRoy

However, none of us is making the decision to keep these people out. You belong to an organization that keeps them out; that's the company you're keeping.

I don't think it proper that just because I happen to support Scouting, someone would choose to label me as an anti-gay bigot, but that's what I'm reading here. "One can judge a man by the company he keeps" -- Euripides I would add, and by the company he excludes.

"that quietly includes gay youth and kids who don't have any clear belief in God." AKA the closet. As long as they lie about who they are, they can stay. Sure sounds like one of the last bastions.

Looks like the ACLU will appeal for an en banc decision: http://www.aclusandiego.org/legal/our-cases/ The court issued a decision on December 20, 2012, reversing the district court and holding that the leases to the Scouts do not violate the state or federal constitutions. We have obtained an extension of time until January 10, 2013 to seek rehearing en banc.

You'd never guess from that column that abortions have been going down in the US since the 1980s, and a good deal of that is due to PP involvement in contraception. Of course it may be heading back up due to e.g. Texas.

Similar to the SA, but god and the queen are being debated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20921353

"That still only counts as two!" -- Gimli

Unlike you, I don't need to mock any religion. No, you only mock atheists, and atheism isn't a religion. clap. clap. clap. So you'd be wrong, again. About what? I never referred to anything YOU'D do... unless you want to admit you're an anti-atheist. Now just sit their your wrongness and be wrong. No, I'll continue to mock your cowardly "challenges" for atheists to mock Muslims, even though we've already done that.

I'd be willing to bet that if a group of atheists set up a display in the public square to celebrate one of their own special holidays, whenever those days might be, or perhaps looked to highlight the public works and philanthropy of some renowned athiests or atheistic societies, whatever those efforts might be, that there wouldn't be any sort of counter display from undie-bundled Judeo Christian devotees. You'd lose. There are already quite a large number of cases where billboards that say "Don't believe in god? Join the club" or similar have been vandalized. http://current.com/groups/atheism/92161728_sacramento-atheist-billboard-vandalized.htm http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/03/02/more-atheist-billboard-vandalization/ http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=11355159 http://www.khq.com/global/story.asp?s=11443349 http://www.examiner.com/article/california-atheist-billboard-vandalized-3-days-after-going-up http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/08/31/another-atheist-billboard-vandalized/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/21/atheist-billboard-vandalized-near-roanoke-virginia/ http://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-atheist-billboard-defaced.html http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/11/atheist_billboard_sponsored_by.html http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6193539-atheists-billboard-vandalized That's only a partial list, I assume you can use google. I've also noticed over time that, as a rule, anti-theists tend not to mock religions where there is a chance that their head would be unceremoniously removed from their body by militant members of said religion for mocking it. Oh wait, atheists have: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/atheist-group-targets-muslims-jews-with-myth-billboards-in-arabic-and-hebrew/ Now, of course, it's more dangerous when religious lunatics control the local government: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/12/14/the-freedom-of-thought-2012-report-the-non-religious-are-still-being-persecuted/ http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/12/new-report-shows-widespread-discrimination-against-people-without-religious-belief I've noticed, as a rule, anti-atheists try to mock atheists for not mocking Islam, but fail to mock Islam themselves, because they are just cowards.

State ACLU affiliates handle requests for legal assistance, not the national ACLU, so it depends on which state you're in. I realize you were trying to be funny... trying...

Yeah, yeah you do. Your cabal of anti-theists takes your "equal access" rights and uses it to mock religious displays. That's called free speech. You'll still notice this only happens with displays mixed with the government. Specifically Christian religious displays to be precise. Those are pretty much the only kinds of displays that get mixed with government endorsement, with the ocassional menorah. And if you want examples of people getting their "panties in a wad", just compare which displays get vandalized.

If it wasn't about offensiveness you anti theists wouldn't get your panties in a wad every time you didn't like what a private citizen does. We don't. We get involved when there's government involvement. You might have noticed that there are never lawsuits against religious displays in front of churches or private homes.

The same people who think this is about "offensiveness" (which is not illegal) are failing to distinguish between private actions and government actions/endorsement, and cannot see that they're comparing apples and oranges.

Stosh writes: People came to the New World to escape state religions of Europe. They wanted relgious freedom and so the Constitution reads the US government cannot establish a state religion. Doesn't say anything about States or any local governmental assemblies being able to do that. Nope, not until the 14th amendment. The last state to have a state religion (hey, look at that - a state religion, something people wanted to escape) was Massachusetts in 1833. After all, many of the states were established on religious principles in the first place, i.e. Utah, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc. Many were based on slavery as well, but that doesn't justify fewer rights for the descendants of slaves. Having a group of kids in school sing a Christmas carol as part of their "holiday" concert doesn't establish any religion. Not having them sing one doesn't establish any religion. What we have done with all the subsequent "interpretations" is turned our country from a institution that promotes tolerance of all religions into an institution that tolerates no religions. Complete and utter hogwash. Having the government stay out of the religion biz is the best thing to happen to religion. We have turned our country into one of those godless nations that we used to read about 50 years ago that were the scourge of the world. Wow, you're completely insane. Really. That's the babblings of someone disconnected with reality. I guess I don't worry too much about it, after 2,000 years, the persecuted Christian church always thrives under oppression, it seems to have waned when that persecution went away. Yeah, the "persecution" of having 90% of government offices occupied by Christians. Here, I'll play a real sad song on a tiny violin...

Me personally, I'd fire da administrators who made such a rule. Lack of common sense good judgment means yeh shouldn't be runnin' a school Like having a public school run a private no-atheists club? Oh wait, you seem to think that's legal and even good judgement.

Do you truly think "The night before Christmas" is religious? About on par with a dreidel; not very, but clearly associated with one particular religious holiday.

Hey skeptic, I know how you constantly beat the drum that it's OK to ignore the civil rights of certain undesirable people as long as there aren't too many of them, but it sounds to me like you're whining about an administrative decision. Don't you think they can make such decisions? Just be reassured that no other teachers in that school are reading "god is not great" to their classes, either. The students aren't there to be solicited by your religious views.

the average uniformed voter will squawk There's a separate forum for that...

That would be the party that tries to regulate what people can do with their own bodies, correct?

No, you believe in cussing with impunity. So do many nominally religious that cuss at atheists or anyone else whose lives have been imposed upon because of their rantings. I use words that I think are appropriate; if you don't, that's your problem. It might be chalked up as antipathy, but really it's the plain old: "I got mine. I don't care if something is important to them." -- with a little profanity ordered up in a wasted attempt to elevate yourself above whatever wreckage lies around us. "why the hell don't you ask THEM" is just to point out that you are talking to the wrong party. ... set her straight. ... So have you? Or is that "not your problem"? It's nice that you care. Well I guess I won't know if my reminding her of her 1st amendment rights will have helped until it's time for next year's graduation festivities. You still aren't making sense. Why won't you know until next year? Even if the date for that baccalaureate service has passed (I don't know, you're hardly being clear), it's quite possible NOW to determine 1) where she got the mistaken idea in the first place, and 2) if it's established that her position as a public school teacher doesn't bar her from working on a baccalaureate service with a church. Now, since your details about this whole thing are so vague and unhelpful, your original statement of "why do my kids' teachers not want to be known for organizing the baccalaureate service?" could mean that your kids' teachers can't solicit their students to attend a baccalaureate service, which is true, just as they can't solicit their students to attend their church. But there's no way for me to tell from what you write. Maybe some cussing would clear things up.

I believe in pointing out bigoted behavior, such as stereotyping entire groups of people, as bigotry.

qwazse writes, demonstrating he doesn't understand analogies: Sorry Meryl, I have never been cussed at by Jews when I've brought up matters of Palestine. Never by Catholics when I've brought up the counter-reformation. Women? Well, two out of three ain't bad. And, I probably deserved it anyway. WHOOSH is the sound of the point going over your head. And the apathy towards someone seeking to express religious sentiment often is framed in profanity. Here you seem to think you used the word "antipathy", but you didn't. Moreover when you reference the Abyss, I know you don't really mean it. So spare the hollow vanities. I was referencing your bigotry towards atheists as a class, but you missed my point. It went over your head. Of course it's not your fault that suit-weary educators want to steer cleaned clear of secular (per S947's reference) improprieties. Even when within legal rights, the cost of defending a "walk up to, but not over, the fence" becomes prohibative. And here you probably meant "prohibitive" . . . and having a legal right to something is not a bar to public criticism. But your insisting that their "invisible muzzle" is not your problem serves to affirm that the "constraints of Oath and Law" upon your felllows need not be a concern of scouters. I only pointed out that, whoever got the idea that a public teacher can't arrange a baccalaureate service on her own time, doesn't know the law; there is no legal "muzzle", it's all in someone's distorted idea of what the law IS. Like I said, ignorance is its own punishment. I can't do anything for this nameless teacher's ignorance of the law, since I have no idea who she is; you, however, are in a position to set her straight. So have you? Or is that "not your problem"?

Only to make up for the federal tax difference due to unrecognized gay marriage at the federal level, SeattlePioneer, so the net gain is zero.

fred8033 writes: Bigot? Really? Let's see how his sentence looks with some other substitutions... "Don't cuss. It betrays the dismissive and repressive behavior of the common Jew." "Don't cuss. It betrays the dismissive and repressive behavior of the common Catholic." "Don't cuss. It betrays the dismissive and repressive behavior of the common woman." Yep, that's bigotry. Its really the same things with scouts. Belief in a higher power is a core element. You can personally believe different and participate. Thats tolerance. But you cant use scouting as your platform to advocate the opposite. That just not smart. Are you even living in the same universe as I am? I'm not using scouting as any kind of platform; I'm no longer a member. UK scouting is considering a change to officially allow atheists, and if they do, there's goes your "core element" argument, at least in the opinion of those in charge of UK scouting.

Don't cuss. It betrays the dismissive and repressive behavior of the common secularist. Bigot. This person I talked to said that, because of her position as a teacher, she wasn't supposed to be organizing baccalaureate. Sorry, now you aren't even making sense. If some random teacher doesn't know the law, or if the school officials at her school don't know the law, that's certainly not the fault of me or any group of atheists. Ignorance is its own punishment.