Merlyn_LeRoy

Once a culture gets away from following one unchangable set of morals, it's doomed to fall. Finally, someone has explained why we still have slavery, why interracial marriage is not recognized, and why rape laws don't apply to married couples.

If you do NOT feel that the BSA should be penalized for its current policies Well AZMike, I guess you're penalizing me, because you've never given me ANY money, ever.

TX is just setting itself up as a closer place for the rich to move to. "If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." -- Mark Twain

The one main reason I'd like to hang onto the electoral college is that, if there's a very close popular vote, it would be like Florida in 2000, except every state in the union. Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. eisely, two states (Maine and Nebraska) divide their electoral votes; neither one is proportional, but instead the winner of each congressional district gets 1 EV and the overall winner of the state gets the last 2 EVs (the senator EVs). There is an interesting way people are trying to change to a popular vote -- get state legislatures to pass a bill, saying they will assign all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote, with this bill becoming effective when the EVs of all the states that have passed this bill make up a majority of EVs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The 25,000 signatures (not 250,000) is just the white house petition target (it used to be 5,000 but they raised it). All it means is that you might get an answer to whatever your petition is about.

Austin can be an exclave.

Whoa, slow down ... changing the wheelbarrow age limit takes a quorum, ya anarchist.

moosetracker writes: I guess Congress can regulate the Presidential Election, but not the local elections.. I'm not even sure of this; technically, you're voting in a state election to send people to represent your state in the electoral college.

Something that might be a bit more pertinent to the BSA, all three referenda (assuming the mail-in ballots don't change the outcome in Washington state) that were up to a popular vote were in favor of same-sex marriage, plus MN didn't change its constitution to only recognize opposite sex marriage. Also, first out gay senator elected.

SeattlePioneer, your "mind-reading" act continues to fail. Sorry, I don't worship science OR imaginary superbeings, but anyone using terms like "dogma" to describe scientific theories is talking nonsense.

I think the amusing part are the religious ones who use religious terms like "dogma" in referring to scientific theories, as if terminology puts religious myths and scientific theories on equal footing.

Meyrl, many competent scientists proceed through their analyses under the assumption that the divine has granted a "window of stability" under which the laws of the universe may be within the grasp of the human mind. So they assume a magic user exists that doesn't bother to do any magic. Or maybe 101 magic users who never do anything. Why assume any exist at all, if they never do anything? Why this is allowed, well that's a matter for theologians. It's so when this magic user never does anything, there's no shattering of people's illusions.

Kind of a meaningless assumption qwazse, since you can substitute "extraterrestrial aliens" or "Harry Potter" or "munchkins" or zillions of other things for "the divine" and it's just as true. It's just not sensible to analyze anything if you also try to assume that unseen supernatural forces can change things arbitrarily; you'd have to qualify every statement to a ridiculous degree: "At 10:32 AM (assuming leprechauns haven't changed my chronometer) I observed (assuming a passing vampire isn't controlling my mind and making me see things) that pure water (assuming Poseidon hasn't added salt) boils (assuming my short-term memory hasn't been rewritten by aliens) when heated (assuming fire:hot).

Shouldn't that be "SWMBO"?

Well then, they really need to update their web page skeptic: http://www.ahgonline.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=19322 American Heritage Girls is a Christ-centered leadership and character development ministry. The following Statement of Faith applies to all American Heritage Girls' Charter Organizations, Adult Members and Adult Leaders. "We believe that there is One Triune God Father, Jesus Christ His one and only Son, and the Holy Spirit Creator of the universe and eternally existent. We believe the Holy Scriptures (Old/New Testament) to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. http://www.ahgonline.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=19318 AHG Vision: "American Heritage Girls is the premier national character development organization for young women that embraces Christian values and encourages family involvement."

I haven;t read this entire thread. There's so much bickering I frankly can't be bothered. Mitchell and Webb can summarize:

Well SeattlePioneer, as usual, when I want you to back up your mouth with actual examples of your accusations against me, you don't. All you have are your baseless slurs with nothing to back them up. Feel free to somehow show that I "actively object to any kind of religious expression"; this will be rather hard, as that isn't my actual position. You're just lying about me. PS: Here's a thread I started to complain about Gov. Perry lying about whether kids can pray in public schools: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=334410 I'm clearly arguing that kids CAN pray in public schools, and you were the first person to reply to the thread, so you have no excuse for your lying about me. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Peregrinator writes: Respectfully submitted for your consideration - are these examples of tolerance, or intolerance? Keep in mind I've been asking SeattlePioneer for examples of atheist intolerance; as he put it: "Intolerant atheists will actively object to any kind of religious expression." Well now you're just lying. You're still mouthing off with no actual examples. I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group. So far, all I have is your bigoted raving. None of the above indicates that I object to any kind of religious expression. The "lying" remark was where SeattlePioneer accused me of being an intolerant atheist ("Look in a mirror"); since I actually do NOT object to every kind of religious expression, his accusation is a lie. The "mouthing off" remark is because SeattlePioneer hasn't provided any actual quotes to support his accusations. SeattlePioneer is clearly a bigot as he feels it's OK to judge an entire group of millions of people by the actions of one. And the last line just summarizes his ranting.

SSScout writes: Agnostic folk aren't sure, atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault. Nope, atheist means "not a theist," which merely means the person doesn't believe any gods exist. It does not suggest any particular degree of certainty. "" Of course it suggests ALOT of certainty! GOD(s) does not exist! And that is where our argument starts! No. A theist believes one or more gods exist; an atheist is someone who is not a theist, i.e. does not believe one or more gods exist. Note that neither the theist nor the atheist has necessarily made a statement that they are certain; it only describes their beliefs. Of course, either one can SAY they are certain, if they like, but that's not a requirement of being a theist OR an atheist. If my "authority" for my actions is that I have discerned God's will for my life, then we must ask, what is the "authority for the actions in YOUR life? I don't have one. Deal with it. Again, I say ""atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault"" How is this not true for you? I haven't said if it's true for me or not; I stated that your definition of "atheist" isn't correct. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. I see you claim a non-belief in the existance of "any gods". That's correct; I don't have a belief in any gods existing. Fine, does that mean you claim the authority for your actions to be from anything other than yourself? I don't even claim "authority" for my actions from myself. My point was that people of faith seek to do the "will of God", whether that means caring for and curing the leper or killing all the infidels. Sounds like a rather poor guide then. People of athiest bent seek no such Higher Authority, trying to do the "right thing" from ... umm , what authority? I give up; what authority? You keep bringing it up. Am I correct in feeling the only authority an athiest would claim must be (therefore) palpaple and (dare I say it) human in source? Some might, but it's not intrinsic to atheism either. Atheists can believe in any number of platonic ideals or supernatural things, as long as gods aren't part of it.

It's very simple, Merlyn: Look in a mirror. Well now you're just lying. And frankly Merlyn, your behavior on these forums on behalf of atheists is ample good reason why they should be excluded. And if I were black, that'd be a good reason to exclude ALL blacks, right? You can't even come up with good excuses now. A certain number of atheists are always going to resist any degree of religious expression in a program. Intolerant atheists have an agenda to drive religion out of the public square, and out of any private square they can sqauk about. You're still mouthing off with no actual examples. What have I said or done to be "intolerant"? So while I have no objection to having tolerant atheists in Scouting programs, I would be the first to boot Merlyn out of Scouting if he showed up in a unit where I was a leader. And vice-versa. I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group. He just can't help being perpetually disruptive about this issue, and the best way to resolve it is to exclude him. I'm still waiting for you to come up with actual statements I've made or actions of mine that make me "intolerant." So far, all I have is your bigoted raving.

I never said you wrote those things. I said "You act." For all of your harping on my literacy, those are two different statements. I'll still criticize your reading ability, since you read things that aren't there. Pretty much the only knowledge you have about me is what I've written in this forum. If I've said anything that resembles claiming that joining the BSA is a right, quote something I've written. Otherwise I'll just keep telling you that you can't read well.

Peregrinator writes: I don't recall anyone's saying that the boy shouldn't be allowed to be an atheist. They aren't allowing him to be an atheist when the SA says atheist youth can join, but then turn around and say he has to pretend to be religious by taking a god-oath. http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs185082.pdf No young person should receive less favourable treatment on the basis of, nor suffer disadvantage by reason of: o class; o ethnic origin, nationality (or statelessness) or race; o gender; o marital or sexual status; o mental or physical ability; o political or religious belief. They just don't live up to what they say.

These kids are not being forced. Either they enter the BSA or the British Scouts, or they don't. If they enter, they are agreeing to the Oath. The Scouting Association (not British Scouts) has said in the recent past that atheist youth CAN join the SA. It's a meaningless gesture if atheists still have to "pretend" to be religious by reciting a god-oath. They're basically lying to atheist kids when they say they can join. "And there goes Merlyn, not understand that the BSA has the constitutional right to set it's membership standard (discriminate)." Merlyn replys: "Wrong, but that won't stop you. " I don't know when you were on the Supreme Court Merlyn, I'm not on it, and neither are you. They happen to agree with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale. I mean you were wrong about ME. I do "understand that the BSA has the constitutional right to set it's membership standard(s)". Your accusation that I didn't know that was wrong. Sentinel 947 writes "You act as if ANYBODY's membership in the BSA is a right." Merlyn writes: "No, I don't. You just can't read. I've never stated that." Your statement is wrong here. I can obviously read. I was educated in a quite nice Public School, and I'm quite pleased with the education the USA has provided to me. And in my honest opinion, you do act as if Membership of Atheists or homosexuals in the BSA is some sort of right. I'm willing to grant you that my statement is my personal opinion. Sorry, you really can't read. I have NEVER said membership in the BSA is some sort of right. If you want to make this an insulting arguement, I'll gladly let you win. However, if you want to have substantive, polite discussion you are going to have to do better my friend. Well, you'll have to learn to read better. I will agree that my "Wrong, but that won't stop you" was ambiguous as to the subject of the sentence; I've clarified that above. However, both that and your continued misstatements about what I've said about rights shows you don't read what I've written, because I've never written those things.

SSScout writes: Agnostic folk aren't sure, atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault. Nope, atheist means "not a theist," which merely means the person doesn't believe any gods exist. It does not suggest any particular degree of certainty.

Sentinel947 writes: And there goes Merlyn, not understand that the BSA has the constitutional right to set it's membership standard (discriminate). Wrong, but that won't stop you. Nobody is forced to do religious anything in the BSA. I cannot make the words of the Oath and Law explode from your lips. Only you can do that. What are you babbling about now? I've been asking SeattlePioneer for examples of these 'intolerant atheists' he's been referring to. Now, I did counter with examples of the sorts of things intolerant theists do, but you can't read if you somehow see 'boy scouts' or 'BSA' in there. I'm referring to things like this: http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/10/irish-atheist-pupil-who-was-forced-to-pray-claims-human-rights-violation You act as if ANYBODY's membership in the BSA is a right. No, I don't. You just can't read. I've never stated that.