Merlyn_LeRoy

Biblical polygamy? Or something more egalitarian?

My guess is more than 15 years.

The "fencing in gays" remark was by Pastor Charles Worley of the Providence Road Baptist Church:

moosetracker writes: Also, although always being anti-atheist.. It was not so for the homosexual clause. It was a local option up until the early 1990's when it was added. Had they left it local option, they would have sailed through the whole polarization without a scratch. No, they still would have lost public schools and other government chartering partners due to religious discrimination.

Eagledad writes: Political correctness is not a measurable cause of the BSA's problems. Notice where Dale v. BSA falls on that graph posted by BSA24?

skeptic writes: Oh come on Brew'; that makes too much common sense. It is much better to complain and try and force them to change for you, rather than simply not associate with them. After all, it their right to make sure no widely recognized group can disagree or follow their own way without interference; even though they would complain if someone (actually have on occasion)suggests they should change their views. What's that got to do with this thread? "The change in the Australian Girl Guides pledge comes on the heels of extensive consultation across the country, said Belinda Allen, director of the Girl Guides of Australia, in an interview with BBC TV." Sounds like they actually tried to find out what their members wanted, and changed in response. What's wrong with that? It really comes back to people being too full of themselves as I have noted numerous times. Back to preparing for camp and worrying about my own unit and its program. Do not have time to go beating the local council for possible under the radar atheists or Gays. Still think local option is the best answer and hope National eventually recognizes that as well. So are you too full of yourself? You appear to want the BSA to change to a local option, something a lot of people in favor of gay and/or atheist members have been in favor of for years.

SeattlePioneer writes: I think they left something out. How bout adding: "In GLBT we trust"? Why?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1222667--australian-girl-guides-drops-reference-to-queen-and-god-in-pledge ... The change in the Australian Girl Guides pledge comes on the heels of extensive consultation across the country, said Belinda Allen, director of the Girl Guides of Australia, in an interview with BBC TV. The Girl Guide association is not connected to any religious institution and we accept girls of all belief systems and cultures, said Allen. ...

skeptic writes: Actually Merlyn, the standing issue likely will eventually reach the high court with the San Diego case. It might; but you'll notice that standing was still a requirement, however thin. Yes, I know you disagree and think the public good is not a factor with the cases. Actually, I DO think the public good is a factor; ALL of the public, not just the public that the BSA prefers. If the scouts should lose the camps, the city and area will be the real losers. Well, cities should be more careful making public contracts with discriminatory organizations like the BSA. I have no sympathy. SeattlePioneer writes: You need to look at how things actually work, not to be distracted by some elaborate theory that functions to deceive people. Like all your not-an-actual-example examples? Your made up fanatasies? (I know I mistyped "fantasies", but I think it came out better).

SeattlePioneer writes: The issue of standing is an interesting one, and a pliable one depending on how readily the courts want to solicit cases. In its liberal activist years, issues of standing were relaxed. In recent years, barriers to bringing cases have been made more rigid. Got any examples? By the way, you failed to note that the standing issue trashes your assertion about courts patrolling the United States for lawsuits. The extent to which the Federal courts and the ACLU are enmeshed to patrol public spaces for signs of religious activity is no secret, and no joke. And no examples on your end, still. This has the political effect of empowering atheists and creating official hostility towards religion. Whine, whine, whine. Of course you don;t want to recognize any of this. A lack of examples sure makes it easy to miss.

SeattlePioneer writes: You are kidding yourself. The courts and institutions such as the ACLU are out there patrolling the United States for lawsuits over issues like this. You don't know how the real world works; the federal courts settle issues that come before it; in order to bring a court case, a plaintiff is needed. Even if a court official found some violation, that official would not have standing to bring a case. A person actually affected by the violation would be needed. Same with the ACLU. That's why both of these organizations have cases brought to them by people who have been affected to some degree. You seem to be a true believer in the religion of Court Worship and judicial rule we have had foisted upon us by the judiciary. Nope, I just live in the real world, where court decisions, even ones I dislike, disagree with, or consider unconstitutional, are case law. It's ironic that the Supreme Court and all the littler courts are out censoring religious activities in the public square, what they do in fact is to create space for new religions to take control and dominate in those spaces. Only in your paranoid fantasies. The first amendment does not mean anyone and everyone gets to say prayers and make speeches at graduation exercises. It's ironic that the Supreme Court, which fancies itself the protector of the constitution, is the biggest and most persistent corrupter of that poor document. Oh, yawn.

That's certainly not true of the Santa Fe case; of course, every lawsuit that ends with an opinion that says the plaintiff's civil rights were violated is justified -- unless people aren't supposed to complain about their civil rights being violated.

SeattlePioneer writes: Somehow the Supreme Court and the atheist left seems to be struck dumb on the subject of diversity when it comes to religion in the public square. Somehow SeattlePioneer manages to immediately forget the Mormon and Catholic families that filed the lawsuit in the Santa Fe case, and the evangelical who wrote a column opposing prayers at school football games; only atheists can be demonized. And "religion in the public square" usually means the majority religion is expressed, and nobody else's. Yeah, great "diversity" there. The idea of the Federal courts patrolling public meetings, ever on the lookout for someone praying so they can swoop in and save the day is ridiculous. They don't; citizens bring lawsuits. Why do you make up crap and present it as truth? Trying to start a new religion?

I believe you haven't been specific at all, SeattlePioneer. A lot of thud and blunder about how atheists/liberals/monsters are removing religion, and your odd belief that anyone and everyone should get to pray and make speeches at graduations, but no e.g. court decisions that you disagree with. Just bombast.

So you have no specific complaints, SeattlePioneer?

SeattlePioneer writes: The previous line of decisions by the courts left it to elected public officials to make policies about what to do about religiously tinged issues. I suggest that elected officials did a far better job of that than rigid court decisions, since they could adapt to the infinite variety of local situations. Local officials all too often ignore civil rights: http://www.mormonstoday.com/000625/N1SchoolPrayer02.shtml ... But the problem faced by the Mormon and Catholic families wasn't limited to simple promotion of a church. It included outright harassment of their children, simply because they weren't part of the dominant church. When one of the children in the Mormon family questioned a teacher's promotion of a revival, the teacher asked the student what religion she belonged to. When told that the child was Mormon, the teacher launched into an attack on Mormonism, calling it a "non-Christian cult," saying it was of the devil, and telling the child that she was going to hell. The court also heard 'uncontradicted' evidence that students who declined to accept Bibles or objected to prayers and religious observances in school were verbally harassed. Because of the climate, the families decided that they needed protection, and filed their lawsuit anonymously. But the district actively sought to find out their identities, according to one report going as far as to interrogate some students in an effort to discover the identities of the families. These efforts led the district court to threaten "the harshest possible contempt sanctions" if school employees continued trying "to ferret out the identities of" the families. It specifically enjoined the district from using "bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright 'snooping'"to discover who the families are. The court also closed the courtroom when the children in the families testified because of "the possibility of social ostracization and violence due to militant religious attitudes. One of the witnesses who testified in the case (not a member of either family), chose to home-school her youngest daughter to avoid persistent verbal harassment, with pushing and shoving, over issues of religion in the public school. "One size fits all" fits very few people. Like when local officials misuse public schools to promote the majority religion, as above or here (yes, this IS a WorldNetDaily link): http://www.wnd.com/2005/10/32839/ But it has tremendously advantaged the militant atheists who are are still looking for the opportunity to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest. Well, the Santa Fe lawsuit that eliminated prayers before school football games was brought (anonymously, due to the danger) by a Mormon and a Catholic family; and the WND letter is by an evangelical Christian. I would be amused if the courts would treat atheism the same way they treat other systems of religious beliefs. That would be amusing! Generally, they do. Got any specific examples?

Since Neuhaus thought that atheists cannot be good citizens, I'll stick with the federal courts.

SeattlePioneer writes: Militant atheists and Federal Courts want to exclude religion from the public square and public activities by censoring what people are allowed to say and do. I think that is wrong. The federal courts want this now? Well then, I guess you're screwed. We need to join together to understand and respect our varying religious traditions --- atheism included. They should all have a respected place in the public square and in Scouting in particular. So, you're against excluding atheists from scouting? Or is excluding atheists a way to "respect" them now?

moosetracker writes: Strange, both your article and mine come from the atheist viewpoint.. Strange, my article is written by Alexander Goerlach, who has a Ph.D. in Catholic theology and uses "we" when referring to Christians, as in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-goerlach/egyptian-atheism_b_1009124.html ... "Being Christian can be a bloody business. Today, we are the world's most persecuted religion, especially in Muslim countries." ... So I have no idea how you can claim his article is from "the atheist viewpoint" (or even "AN atheist viewpoint", since I have detected more than one viewpoint among atheists). Yours tries to show that the muslims dislike non-muslims and so must learn to "get along", while I am sure there may be a few with this attitude, I have a feeling the attitude of one or two are being held up to promote the atheist's cause as right.. Mine shows the athiest disdain for anything religious, and that religion in their opinion is "child abuse", so they want to give anyone special consideration if it deals with their faith. Maybe you'd better be sure that someone is an atheist before saying they're an atheist. Just a thought.

moosetracker writes: I read an article a while ago.. When I went in search of it, I found that is was comments about court cases in Germany and Toronto Canada.. As of yet, I don't see atheist protesting against Muslim children using an empty classroom at recess or lunch to quietly do their daily prayers. I will state that the atheist in the other countries are wrong, when the children are using their own free time, and doing their prayer in private.. I just hope that this battle does not reach the USA.. Which articles? Are you referring to this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-goerlach/no-skanks-allowed_b_1137744.html For Toronto, if you're referring to Valley Park Middle School, that wasn't about using an empty classroom, the school was conducting religious services in the cafeteria, and only for Muslims.

SeattlePioneer writes: Just because it's the courts that are censoring speech doesn't mean it isn't censorship, pure and simple. Just because you whine, doesn't mean you have the right to make a speech at a graduation. It's pretty amusing that you can't recognize the concept. Oh, I can recognize whining, all right. In your world, apparently everyone gets to make speeches and say prayers anywhere and everywhere they like; there's no such thing as a limited public forum or closed forum. Total strangers get up during graduations all across the country to make speeches, because denying anyone is censorship.

SeattlePioneer writes: It's CENSORSHIP of someone's speech. Pure and simple. You have no first amendment right to speak at a graduation. Pure and simple. Read Lee v. Weisman. It just happens to be censorship you like and approve of. Nope. Public school graduations likewise can't promote atheism. Like that ever happens. Moosetracker writes: I will side with SP, that Athiest have been sticking their nose into silencing free religion of school children in another matter.. What difference does it make to an atheist child if a muslim child goes into a private room for whatever praying they feel the need to do at certain times of the day?.. If they are not doing it in the classroom, and not asking all people to follow tradition, and they are privately going off to do their thing, what buisness is it of the athiest?.. It's like trying to pass rules that no child can get permission to leave the classroom to pee.. Respecting everyones beliefs are not happening here.. The Athiest are instead trying to kill the religious rights of muslim children. Where is this happening, and what atheists are involved? Is it handled like school released time?

SeattlePioneer writes: You just don't want to take notice of uses of political power of which you approve. Nope. But that's a good description of your views. A high school student who wants to give a peaceful prayer as part of a graduation speech will find his speech censored and find himself bullied by the principal and Federal Courts for the simple act of giving a peaceful speech. This actually depends on the circumstances, but nuance isn't your strong suit. In other contexts, liberals profess to be horrified at censoring speech and bullying, but they will self righteously use those tactics when they have other values they don't wish people to be able to speak. Nope, the context is an official school ceremony -- graduation. That graduation is for all students, not just for students of the majority religion. Turning a public school graduation into a religious ritual violates the first amendment, as the government is prohibited from doing that. You might notice that nobody is getting preferential treatment -- if one religious group gets to impose their prayer on the entire graduation class, how can you refuse the others? You might want to look up Lee v. Weisman. You're just whining because people can no longer have public graduations involve their religion; instead, they have to hold their own religious graduation ceremonies in a church or something. How awful. Where did I put that tiny violin...

SeattlePioneer writes: Scout activities often feature a simple prayer of some kind, something the "diversity" of politically correct schools recoil from in horror. Because public schools can't constitutionally conduct religious rituals like prayer. Or worship services. Or fasting for Ramadan. etc. The "diversity" of politically correct institutions is just another form of orthodoxy imposed upon people. It gives some people new liberties and imposes censorship on others, forcing them into the closet recently vacated by those being smiled upon by the political powers that be. In your imaginary world, maybe. In the real world, nobody has lost any rights, they've just stopped governmental imposition of religion.

By your logic, someone who holds to a "progressive" ideology could argue that we should delete other sections of the Pledge to better conform to his or her beliefs. One could argue that one should not pledge allegiance to a flag, as it is "only" a piece of cloth. One could argue that "one nation" is inaccurate, as America holds both rich and poor communities. One could argue that "with liberty and justice for all" is inaccurate, as liberty and justice are denied to many. But since these aren't religious beliefs, they wouldn't have a first-amendment-based argument. The supreme court DID rule that nobody can be compelled to say the pledge (after getting it wrong in Minersville School District v. Gobitis). By contrast, "under god" in the pledge IS a first-amendment issue.