Merlyn_LeRoy

Although atheists are defined in non-believers in God, they in fact believe there is no God which makes them believers in many respects. Well no, but I'm sure you don't care about being accurate or anything.

Public schools can't hold baccalaureate services; assuming it's being held in a church, my guess would be that it has nothing to do with their teaching position, so there's no reason to mention it. But why the hell don't you ask THEM?

Or change it, like the UK SA is considering. By the way, religion isn't excluded from public schools in the US.

I wouldn't agree that it's the same; showing concern only for the kids who are in the BSA and none for the kids excluded by the BSA is why I consider such concern to be crocodile tears.

If some camp told me they don't want me to attend because of some belief I had, they would be the last place I would want to stay in the first place. Sue them for discrimination? Nope This isn't just "some camp", it's on public parkland. You can ignore violations of your rights if you like; I won't.

Looks like the UK Scout Association will finally be officially open to atheists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9719079/Time-for-a-Promise-that-atheists-can-keep.html

Merlyn: I do not need a wiki link to a child. I was so recently one myself. FAR more recently than you. Well, you failed to notice that the link I gave was NOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children but instead was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_interests_(rhetoric) The forum software doesn't scan a link past the apostrophe, so you need to copy and paste the entire link. Balboa only books part of the property during "part" of the summer for scouting activities. Yeah, well, the lawsuit is over how the BSA has religious requirements and how atheist and gay taxpayers have inferior access. Again, the Randall twins were allowed to continue, once it was established they were not yet sure about their beliefs, but rather following the father's lead. Once they were old enough to make their choice, they lost. Nope. They lost because the court ruled the BSA was not covered under the Unruh act. The BSA wanted to throw them out years earlier, they were only stopped because the court wouldn't let them while the case was active. The questions that go unanswered and the points that are ignored are perhaps the most telling in this forum... The questions that are vaguely referred to can't but help to be ignored.

For all the talk of "coexisting," anti-theists sure don't have a lot of tolerance for organizations that do not share their belief system. Not for ones that pretend to be for "all boys" yet reject atheist boys, no. Sentinel947, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_interests_(rhetoric) Well skeptic, why did the Randall twins stay in scouting for years during the court fight? Sounds to me like they wanted to stay in, since they did, in fact, stay. The BSA wanted to throw them out for years. How about the ongoing San Diego camp suits? Those "adults" claim their kids are not able to use the camps because they are administered by BSA. But the general public is allowed to use them, even if not members. The general public is only allowed to use it after BSA members get to reserve its use, and the BSA testified that they book it 100% during the summer months with their own members; the general public only gets to use it about 20% of the time overall. That's not even as fair as having to sit in the back of the bus, since you arrived at the destination just the same.

Connected how, brewmeister? Are you unfamiliar with people being opposed to two different forms of discrimination at the same time? skeptic, how about some actual examples of parents using their kids as pawns? Those that attack the kids, as Sentinel says, are completely out of line; and I will tell them so should they do it in front of me. Freedom of "choice" is pretty clear; but it is "your" choice, not mine. And you do not have the right to force it on me or others when you have the option of simply "not choosing to participate". Sorry if that is too simplistic for our more erudite practitioners of political philosophy. THINK of the CHILDREN!!!!!eleven!!!

So Merlyn are you saying you should fight a bad policy of discrimination against children by attacking children? When you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned. I have no problem with people having nothing to do with the BSA, including not buying trees, popcorn, etc. I welcome the pushback against the BSA's misguided policy. More or less you and I are on the same side here Merlyn. The BSA's demonization of gay/atheist children is wrong. Your bloggers demonization of children in Scouts as destroyers of part of the community is equally as wrong. So write him and tell him. I see SeattlePioneer has been whining on that blog.

Sorry, I can't see it as anything other than whining; if pulling their support is useless, why do you even bother commenting about it? It's also hypocritical in my view to complain how such a boycott is an attack on children; the BSA's policy of throwing out atheist children is at least as much of an attack. And I started this thread to illustrate public pushback against the BSA's policies. It's hardly the only example, it's just more recent.

And those grapes were probably sour anyway, right? Just ignore all the bloggers who actually were in scouts.

Looks like some of the BSA's biggest supporters are also the biggest whiners when other people decide to simply stop dealing with the BSA. Seriously, how did you expect people to react?

I get the feeling that this blogger has not yet had the experience of having a six-year-old son who wants to join the Tigers with his friends. Check some of the other blogs. There really are people who don't allow their kids to join the boy scouts because of their discrimination. And quite a few people don't distinguish between the BSA's policies set by national and a local pack or troop; that's typical of boycotts, they urge people to simply stop dealing with this or that organization in any way. I don't know if it will have the desired effect, but it's not like anything else has changed the BSA's position since the Dale decision.

"The" blog? There are 30 of them participating; that's what blog carnivals are.

There probably aren't many readers of atheist blogs in I&P, so here's a BSA blog carnival going on today against the BSA's exclusionary policies: http://reason-being.com/index.php/2012/12/01/the-boy-scouts-of-america-anti-homosexuality-and-anti-atheist/

Assuming the PR statehood vote counts like a territorial petition for statehood, their constitution should already be acceptable, so all that remains is a bill to pass both houses by simple majority and signed by the president. I'm not sure if congress can override a veto in this case, but I don't think Obama would veto it.

OK, since that's gone, I'll remove this. I like pie, but only apple pie.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

The Supreme Court issues "opinions" and court orders telling pretty much any institution or person what to do. Typically it tells them what they cannot do. But whatever you call it, they are taking enforcement action when they do so. No, they are issuing opinions and court orders, which is well within their powers.

> Exactly. It's a grant of power to the CONGRESS. I have never seen the supreme court pass legislation to enforce the 14th amendment.

For the courts to take and use that power themselves is outrageous. Well, they HAVEN'T. I keep asking you for a specific example, and you can't come up with one.

When the Federal Courts use the authority granted the Congress for themselves, that's an EXCELLENT example of tyranny. That's an EXCELLENT example of not-a-specific example. What authority are the federal courts using that only congress has? Here's an example of a SPECIFIC example: "The federal courts declared war on Ceylon in 2007, yet only congress has the power to declare war."

Like I said, the exec enforces decisions, not the supreme court, and if the exec ignores it, the supreme court can't do anything about it. Andrew Jackson ignored the court rather famously. And since the supreme court strikes down laws, how is that "tyranny"? The court is only preventing laws that are too restrictive, like laws that improperly infringe on the rights of citizens. The end result is halting government action; that's a really odd definition of tyranny you got there. Got any actual examples?

And if the Supreme Court was doing what it should, you would be correct. But in practice the Supreme Court treats the 14th amendment as something that it is entitled to enforce whenever it chooses. How does it enforce it? Like I said, that's the executive branch's job, and if the exec doesn't enforce it, it doesn't get enforced.

It's pretty strange to cite Marbury v. Madison to try and show how the supreme court has exceeded its bounds, since that decision struck down that part of the judiciary act of 1789 that expanded the supreme court's jurisdiction beyond the limits set in article III of the constitution -- in other words, the court refused to accept the larger jurisdiction granted by congress, because congress didn't have the power to extend the court's jurisdiction. And that bit about going 54 years between declaring an act unconstitutional -- that's only by the supreme court itself, and the supreme court reviewed laws during those 54 years, they just found them constitutional. If they didn't have the power to potentially declare those laws unconstitutional, there would be no point in reviewing them at all. And this part: I would say that not surprisingly, the Congress adopted an amendment which gave THE CONGRESS new powers. Not just congress, but at least 3/4 of the states too. I don't see anything about the Supreme Court getting the power to enforce the 14th amendment or other amendments which gave THE CONGRESS the power to enforce those amendments. I don't see the Supreme Court enforcing the 14th amendment. The executive branch enforces the laws, and if it doesn't (e.g. Jackson), they don't get enforced.