Merlyn_LeRoy

And still is.

People can redefine themselves all they want -- but if you genuinely want to understand what another person means by "atheist" or "agnostic", you need to ask them what they mean. If you just want to slap labels on people, you don't even need to ask first.

Better correction here: ask people who call themselves "atheist" and/or "agnostic" (and plenty are both, like me) what they mean by the terms, not other people.

And since LFL allows atheists, either atheist boys can join via LFL, or it's lawsuit time again. And the BSA can't argue that excluding atheists is somehow a vital part of the program since they would already allow atheist girls. As others have also mentioned STEM scouting, I've seen conflicting statements on whether that uses LFL; here's one that says it does: http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/04/15/stem-scouts/ Plus concerning the recent "atheists can be part of a Unitarian-Universalist" troop, maybe adding a "Public Lip Service" merit badge could be added.

It does to fulfill stosh's imaginary governmental repression. It's the difference between being arrested for being a jerk vs. being treated as a jerk for being a jerk.

By whom? Hate speech is perfectly legal in the US.

There's still the ban on atheists, and yes, atheist organizations do and will object to recruitment in public schools.

I won't hold my breath waiting for such a rightwing fantasy to happen, just like those imaginary FEMA death camps.

Or to just dismissing people as "the permissive". Regardless, you don't get to decide what other people find "incendiary" or not.

Hate speech isn't a crime in the US, and can't be as long as the first amendment means anything.

YOU don't get to decide what OTHER people find "incendiary". Your terminology was clearly used as an insult.

There IS no legal action. Names hurt? When hasn't there been namecalling for the last three decades in this BSA nonsense, hypocrite? (cf. your reference to "the permissive")

Only if the BSA violates the law. Simple, isn't it? The BSA is still a private, discriminatory organization; just act like one.

Strictly speaking, voting isn't a right in the US. States vary widely on whether/which ex-felons can vote; if it was a right, I don't think states (IA, KY, FL) could prohibit ex-felons from voting even after completing their sentences.

The best way I've ever heard of (and it's pretty clearly constitutionally OK) is to actually find out what days students and teachers are planning to stay out of school, whether it's for a religious holiday or family gathering or whatever, and plan to have the school closed on days with the most absences and try to avoid things like important tests on remaining days with high absence rates.

So, you're saying all non-Christians who get paid extra for working on xmas are unethical. By the way, I consider being paid to dole out "religion" unethical.

Stosh, it's obvious over many years that you have no idea what an atheist would think or do.

Plenty do, but they usually get overtime pay.

Unless they don't: http://www.dontsaythepledge.com And if public schools try to punish them, the Freedom From Religion Foundation makes them stop. https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14030-pledge-of-allegiance https://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/19878-ffrf-stops-school-from-forcing-students-to-recite-pledge-of-allegiance-november-20-2013

"let boys be atheists" in the sense that they will be required to recite a god-oath and proselytized to become Christians, and can't be adult leaders.

Sorry, I still say that's 100% wrong. States have powers to fulfill their duties, not rights.

Apparently, the UUA considers this to allow atheists into their BSA units: http://thehumanist.com/commentary/boy-scouts-unitarian-universalists-agreement-mean-humanists [Peter Morales, the president of the UUA, in reply to the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association] ... I believe that UU congregations that choose to host scouting units have an opportunity to model what an inclusive and welcoming unit can look like—including those who do not believe in God. ... We have heard from many UU Scouts and Scouting families who don’t believe in God that they were accepted despite BSA national policies. ...

This is the same WOSM that is apparently OK with the Scouting Association in the UK admitting atheists.

Wrong. They have powers to do that, but not rights. The constitution refers to rights of people, and powers of government. You can't just arbitrarily slap the label of "right" on anything -- under US law, there isn't even a right to vote. And DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) & Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) would suggest to me that states do not actually have a duty to protect its citizens, at least not in general (they apparently do for situations like a person being in state custody).

States don't HAVE rights (and never have); they have powers, not rights. And governmental powers are limited by the constitution, which states and your local sheriff (not matter how corrupt) have to respect now. I think Massachusetts shouldn't have the power any more to hang Quakers for having "unacceptable" religious views.