Merlyn_LeRoy

skeptic writes: Merlyn; You ARE NOT a Scouter, so whatever you do or do not believe makes no difference in this context. So what? I was pointing out that your definition didn't match what the BSA has said and how the BSA actually acts. Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused. No, that's not my problem. A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not But not all "somethings greater than self" are gods; you wrote "ALL religious ideas are acceptable, as long as they admit something greater than ourselves", which includes things which are not gods. I disagree that the BSA allows "something greater than ourselves" that are not gods as acceptable. moosetracker writes: Sorry Merlyn, just my opinion here so others may say yes.. But belief in humanity as superior entity is still belief in yourself as the superior entity, as you are human and are a part of humanity. First, I didn't say "THE superior entity" (and neither did you); the threshhold you wrote earlier was "Belief in something greater then yourself". As I am merely a small part of humanity, humanity as a whole is clearly "greater than myself", which would appear to meet your earlier criterion. If you are going to change that to "the superior entity" or something, I'll point out that's a radically different standard than what you previously said. Really? You think that humans are the most superior entity of the universe? I never came anywhere close to writing that. Can you read?

How acceptable would "humanity" be? It would fit a lot of atheist humanists, with no supernatural component.

skeptic writes: ALL religious ideas are acceptable, as long as they admit something greater than ourselves I disagree, as far as BSA membership requirements go; the BSA requires a belief in a god, not merely "something greater than ourselves". And, if one is not able to admit some form of personal belief beyond self, then he should look outside of the Scouting program. It is a choice. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of atheists have "some form of personal belief beyond self", but are rejected because they don't believe in any gods.

Beavah writes: Over time, made-up theories that seem to do a good job explaining or predicting get written down, passed along, taught to others. New made-up theories come along constantly. String theory anybody? Some last for a bit, others even a generation or two. But as packsaddle says, da ones that stand the test of time the longest are the ones viewed as the most useful. And they're da ones we use to make decisions, design aircraft, trust bridges. Not a lick of difference between that and theology. I like this quote by Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller: If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again. That's the difference.

Besides, Meryl would be really upset if we took the mass out of Newton's day! Yeah, it'd go by way too fast otherwise.

Moosetracker writes: Now what is the difference in beliefs of "Not believe in God" seperates the atheists from the new atheists?? Supposedly, the "new atheists" are not afraid of speaking out, while the (old) atheists aren't as uppity, or something. In any case, it doesn't justify limiting Person B's free speech opportunities just because they have similar views to Person A, who has already won a spot. Well the atheists started war.. I would say the Christians started it. The background is a bit more complicated: http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/atheist-displays-displace-nativity-scenes-santa-monica-park-this-xmas ... "For most of the nearly 60 years the city has provided these public spaces for holiday displays, they were occupied almost exclusively by church groups and religious associations and, mostly, nativity scenes. This reporter remembers walking through the block-long display area in the park many times over the years and seeing nothing but Christian religious displays. In recent years, Santa Monica provided a single display space to nonbelievers. Often, these were utilized by the Los Angeles-based Atheists United though AU president Bobbie Kirkhart told this reporter that every banner or display the group put up was either stolen or vandalized before the holidays were over." ... "For many years, atheists were excluded from the city-subsidized displays. Then they were allowed one little spot. Now, finally, atheists have an equal chance for a space just like everyone else. Those Christians who believe their god is concerned about about such things might take note of the extraordinary luck the atheist lottery winners have enjoyed." So Merlyn, are you a "Bah.. Humbug.." atheist.. or a "Happy Holiday" atheist??? I'm a Festivus and Momentous person (Dec. 25 is the day to celebrate Momentum. Because Dec. 25 is Isaac Newton's birthday. So a Newton Day = Kg * m / s^2 * 86400 s = 86400 Kg * m / s, which is momentum)

moosetracker writes: Merlyn - you seem to be lumping all religions into a group of one or seem to know that the town only has one religion.. Catholics is one group, Methodist is one group, Jewish is one group, Episcopalian is one group, Baptist is one group, LDS is one group, then your athiest is one group.. The original suggestion was to divide it by "religions", not sects. So Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Of course, if you get to subdivide Christian in the Catholic, Methodist, etc. then why not divide atheists into atheist, agnostic, new atheists, etc. Which only points out the problem if free speech is restricted by groups (People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front). And by the way, these are people who live in another state, they aren't "my" atheist group. Most likely if the churches unified and had their members each send in a seprate ballot they can in numbers out flood what the Athiests did this year, because not all Athiests are unified in mocking the religions, they just are quietly happy with their beliefs and still respect their friends and family who remain with religious faith.. They can certainly try that next year. But, unsurprisingly, the group that lost their special perks are trying to get them back: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/2-religious-groups-competing-for-holiday-displays-in-santa-monica/ Upset that the Christian displays lost their 14 spaces at Palisades Park this year, the Santa Monica Nativity Committee is asking city officials to the necessary steps to assure the 14 Nativity scenes are allowed on Ocean Avenue in 2012 and forever after. Yep, they want to make sure that they get special treatment.

Looks to me like the city unlawfully gave one particular religious group a public forum that nobody else could use for 60 years, then finally created a fair lottery system, and the Christians weren't very lucky. Taking up spaces in the park to mock other peoples beliefs, may be "free speech" but is not courteous, kind, helpful, friendly or reverent.. Neither is the BSA's official reason for excluding gays -- they aren't "clean" or "morally straight". Oh, and you should look up how some scouts in this forum have responded to me. Start way back with my first posts, where I pointed out that public schools couldn't legally charter BSA units that exclude atheists. For this town, I think the lottery idea was a failure. They said it was the first year they tried it, in order to be open to everyone.. A better way would be to give a spot to each Religion and one spot to the athiest (if they must).. Your method would give the Christians even fewer displays than they got this year -- that's an improvement? And you still haven't solved it if you have more religions than display areas.

vol_scouter writes: So the school prevented people from praying at the flag pole no matter you view point. Thus, you are wrong. Wrong about what? I've said before people have a right to do this, and I started this thread by pointing out that some ignorant officials unlawfully stop people who are legally praying because they don't understand the law and idiots like Rick Perry aren't helping. So what's the bit I'm wrong about? A small group of people bowing their heads in prayer is not a protest or demonstration - it is Free exercise of religion. I doubt that the security for the US supreme court distinguishes between people praying in protest and people praying for other reasons. Since the marshal for the US supreme court can close any part of it at any time for any reason with no notice, yes, they can tell people to move off the steps when they pray. It doesn't appear the group you linked to ever bothered to file a lawsuit; maybe a lawyer pointed out to them that court security was acting legally. Free exercise of religion doesn't trump everything; you can't insist on praying in the oval office. The US supreme court steps, though they look like a public place, are part of the federal supreme court building and can tell everyone to leave the steps if they want to. By the way, vol_scouter, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. Did you somehow miss this in my last message? Maybe I didn't write it enough, and you somehow didn't see it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

Can't teach math, either: http://i.imgur.com/NiYcQ.jpg

I think it's stupid to have government employees like schoolteachers to lead other people's children in prayer; that's a violation of the students' religious rights. And who seriously wants government employees to tell anyone to pray? Of course, students can still pray in school, so it's possible your teacher got it entirely wrong; but that depends on exactly what your teacher said.

vol_scouter writes: Here students were prevented from praying on school grounds before school started: http://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/adf-prepared-to-defend-students-prevented-from-praying-in-see-you-at-the-pole-event/ I've stated before that "see you at the pole" is legal, and that the ACLU also says it's legal: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=188951&p=10 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewAllPosts.asp?userID=1102&p=142 This group was allowed to have a group discussion on the oval plaza of the US Supreme Court but were told to leave when they bowed their heads in prayer: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4285408/when-is-prayer-illegal/ Well, they're being treated like anyone else; it's illegal to demonstrate on the steps of the US supreme court. A lot of people have been arrested for that over the years. The steps of the supreme court aren't like public sidewalks, they're more like the supreme court building itself. The chief justice can pretty much change this if he wants to, since the rules concerning the supreme court building have to be approved by him, so maybe you should berate Roberts for his inhospitality. By the way, vol_scouter, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. Did you somehow miss this in my last message? Maybe I didn't write it enough, and you somehow didn't see it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

vol_scouter babbles: Merlyn, The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion - it does not specify what form that may take therefore i cannot be limited to silent prayers. What are you babbling about now? I haven't said anything about silent vs. non-silent prayers. Are there voices in your head or something? Whenever schools or the government tells folks that they cannot discuss their religion as in a valedictorian speech or when folks praying on the steps of the Supreme Court that open prayer is not allowed, our rights have been eroded. You should support all of our first amendment rights if you want to lecture others. You call people names and attack them because your arguments are not right. What are you babbling about now? I called Gov. Rick Perry a liar because he lied. Are you completely dense? By the way, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. I've noticed many, many, many times in this forum that you and others are quick to make vague accusations, and when I ask for specific examples, I rarely get any kind of response. So, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. That shouldn't be hard, right? If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it. Not a paraphrase, a quote. I've written about 3500 messages here, so it should be easy for you to quote something to support your accusations.

vol_scouter whines: When will you support the next clause the First Amendment. I always have. Of course, it probably doesn't match your funhouse-mirror version of the first amendment. Many students have tried to freely exercise their first amendment rights at school only to be prohibited by the school. Where was your post, criticism, and vitriol? Well, let's see. Here I'm criticizing SeattlePioneer: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=311315&p=2 SeattlePioneer writes: Take atheism as an example. Government prevents schools from having a role in religion and prayer. In effect government enforces a religion free zone in schools. Complete hogwash. Can students pray in school? Yes, if they want to. They can also NOT pray if they want to. Their choice. Can government schools tell students to pray or not pray? No. It's unconstitutional for the government to tell people to pray or not pray, or to compose prayers for schoolchildren. And I'm clearly saying that students can pray if they want to. Here I'm criticizing Ed and TheScout: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=167622&p=3 Ed writes: I don''t have specifics but prayer isn''t allowed in public schools. Wrong Ed. I and many others have tried to explain this to you, but you can''t learn. Students can pray in public school, Ed. It was a long time ago, then someone got offended, sued & now there is no prayer in schools. Wrong Ed. As you say, you don''t have "specifics." You don''t even have facts. TheScout writes: Yes, it would be a shame for public schools to promote morality. Promoting prayer has nothing to do with promoting morality. Do you want unelected school bureaucrats to decide what prayers your kids are to recite? If so, why on Earth do you want such a thing? Now, I could continue for a lot more examples, but it would be pointless, since I've clearly stated my opinion many times and you, vol_scouter, simply don't care what my opinion actually IS. The First Amendment, as you well know, was written to allow the states to have their own state endorsed religions but to prohibit the federal government from making the selection. So the founding fathers would find your views contrary to the original intent. I'm also against slavery, which would be contrary to the original intent of the constitution. However, both official state government religions and slavery are no longer constitutional due to amendments. The 14th Amendment is seen as federalizing everything resulting in the erosion of our First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. No, state powers get eroded because states can no longer infringe on the first amendment rights of citizens. Until you support the ability of everyone to freely exercise their religion - not there is not mention of places where one cannot exercise their religion - then you should not be calling people liars because they support the entire amendment. Well, I haven't done that. I've called Governor Rick Perry a liar for saying kids can't pray in school. That's a lie.

How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg, SeattlePioneer?

It didn't look to me like Beavah was agreeing with me; he came up with a lot of the usual oh-how-Christians-are-being-discriminated-against-in-public-schools malarkey with no actual examples, and from what I could tell, he's claiming that it's e.g. perfectly legal now for a public schoolteacher to tell students that god doesn't exist, but illegal to tell students that god does exist.

Kahuna mysteriously babbles: Fortunately, Merlyn, you don't live or vote in Florida. I don't really see that this concerns you. By the way, I love it when you get all excited and rattled like that. What are you babbling about? First, Rick Perry is the current governor of Texas. Second, any time a high government official like a governor lies about first amendment rights, it concerns me. Yes, it's been clear for quite a while that you don't care about first amendment rights, but other people aren't as short-sighted as you.

SeattlePioneer writes: I see the religious impulse rather widely exploited for use in public schools. Among other things, it's ironic that secularism is preached as part of this new state religion. Hysterical blather doesn't cut it. REVEREND ML King is a SECULAR saint? Earth day is a religious holiday (so why isn't school out on that day)? One might point to sex education classes as being an example of the catechism of public education on that subject. One might point to dodgeball as an example of promoting nuclear fission, but only if one is a lunatic.

Beavah writes: A teacher can, however, tell students that God doesn't exist No they can't, Beavah, not legally. Got a real example? Compare that with da "scientific skeptics" club. So long as it's areligious or anti-religious, a teacher can lead the club, help organize events, etc. Naturally, teachers being much more experienced at such things, those events and clubs are more likely to succeed. Again, got any real examples? Plus, of course, you should compare Christian clubs to atheist clubs. And if you think atheist clubs are wildly more successful than Christian clubs because teachers are falling over themselves to help out, you haven't checked out the Secular Student Alliance and how many schools actively and illegally resist the formation of atheist clubs. Then our "Diversity Club" that advocates a position that animism is equally valid religiously with Christianity is eligible for direct funding by the district using tax dollars. So not only do they have a teacher who can organize events, they have funding that da Christian Club does not, to make their events far more attractive. Again, I'd like a cite. If the State allows advocacy of one position but not another, allows organizing and leads one group but not another, funds one group but not another, it's hard not to see that as "establishing" a position opposing Christian belief in da schools. Yeah. "If". Your imagination doesn't count. How about a school group that promotes proper grammar instead of hick dialects?

SeattlePioneer writes: Personally, I find the extent to which the courts have excised religion from public life and public schools to be outrageous. What, specifically? Any politician who wants to raise such things as political issues is entitled to do so, and might well have my support for doing so. But Perry is lying about what the current law IS. He's misleading people into thinking that students can't pray in public schools NOW. I don't think governors should lie to the public about what the law actually says. Hell, tomorrow he could say it's legal for citizens to kill illegal immigrants, and if some people got murdered because of his statements, I'd say he's partly responsible. The same is true when he lies about first amendment rights. Government is shot through with various kinds of state supported religions. But the courts protect many of them and attack primarily Christians. I have to say, as someone who is not a Christian, its hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country or maybe forty-four in a row. But thats my point, is theyve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status. -- Jon Stewart You're really far gone, you know that?

OK, I can take garden-variety idiots spouting nonsense about the first amendment, but Gov. Perry is absolutely vile. Any number of people can babble and say that children in the US can't pray in school, but when a sitting governor blatantly lies on television and says kids can't pray in school, it's quite likely that some kids who, at times, pray in school, might see that on TV, and, seeing a governor (possibly their own governor) saying that kids can't pray in school, STOP PRAYING IN SCHOOL, because that expletive idiot said so! It's also possible that a slightly lower-grade idiot who happens to be a school official might believe it and stop kids from exercising their religious rights in school, also because that same expletive idiot said so. And all because he's losing in the polls. Forget honesty and first amendment rights. What a worthless sack of protoplasm. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I have tried but failed to find the logic of someone joining the BSA. . . and then complaining about it. Yes, it's sooo obvious from reading the forums here that nobody ever joins the BSA and later complains about it. I suppose, with respect to (vacuous?) rights, I think: (a) what gives an atheist the "right" to enter an organization in an effort to substantially change it? . . . and (b) does not such an atheist disrepect the rights of those who are in the organization and support its goals? Well, let's see: you complained about the iPod shoulder pocket for the new uniform, and how you don't like a more militaristic look. Doesn't that disrespect the rights of those who support the new uniform? I can probably find you complaining about more aspects of the BSA program if I go through all your 468 posts. Or don't your rules count for yourself, only other people?

Nobody is forcing them to join an organization they don't buy into. Nobody is forcing the Girl Guides to change, either. Well although I have nothing against allowing atheists in, I do have something against them forcing the groups to change their oaths.. Nobody is forcing the Girl Guides to change, either. Wow, some people still can't read, can they? People should not join organizations that have tenets that they do not believe. So I assume you're on the side of the atheists who haven't joined and have asked the Girl Guides to add a nonreligious promise, rather than the atheists who simply ignore it and join anyway?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8901378/Girl-guides-set-to-drop-oath-to-God-in-bow-to-secularists.html(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

vol_scouter writes: Obviously, the number bothers you somehow because I drew no value judgments. Well no, not "obviously," because you have repeatedly brought up the small number of gays or atheists in contexts to justify discriminating against them, e.g.: Unless male homosexuals volunteer at a much higher rate than represented in the population, then the BSA is only excluding 1.9% of the population. The incidence of pedophiles is thankfully less than that. So the number of people excluded is small and therefore not much of an issue from a logistics point of view. The CDC reports that less than 1.9% of the population are long term homosexuals - most have relatively short ventures in a homosexual lifestyle. That is a small group to change the values of an entire program. This is not to condemn homosexuals but rather to put things into a proper prospective.