Merlyn_LeRoy

And once again vol_scouter brings up how small a minority population happens to be, as if that somehow justifies treating them differently.

And **** you too, SeattlePioneer.

Due to the prejudices of the parent company, is how I would phrase it. I still find it hilariously stupid that an organization which discriminates against atheists and gays pretends it can teach ethics to kids, including atheist and gay kids.

The school board turned down a $55,000 Learning for Life grant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/florida-school-board-rejects-grant-boy-scouts_n_1007492.html

BadenP writes: Reverent has its origin in a belief in something/someone of a supreme nature and trying to take it out of that context and warp it into a secular definition just devalues the word of its true meaning. Not according to the etymology of the word: reverent late 15c., from L. reverentem, prp. of revereri (see reverence). From 14c. through 17c., commonly also used for reverend (adj.). Related: Reverently. reverence late 13c., from O.Fr. reverence, from L. reverentia "awe, respect," from revereri "to revere," from re-, intensive prefix, + vereri "stand in awe of, fear," from PIE *wer- "to be or become aware of" (cf. O.E. wr "aware, cautious;" see wary). The verb is first attested c.1300. Looks to me like it started as a word that meant general awe/respect/fear, and picked up religious connotations through usage. Many Christians believe that the secularization of many of the societies in the world today has led to their downfall, our own especially. Did society collapse and I overlooked it? Oh wait, it's just that religion doesn't have quite the same stranglehold on everyone that it used to. You can take all the court decisions and historical failures you want to try to justify your case for humanity being an immoral and irreverent people Who has been arguing this? I sure haven't. Can you read? and to state atheism is somehow a more balanced and logical system, but IMO you would be wrong Merlyn. Hey, just have gods show up sometime and I'll change my mind. If you want to roll craps that there is no "GOD" that is your right, but you better be right, I quoted Pascal earlier, but not for his worthless wager. Here's just one example where we're both wrong (assuming you're Christian), but I'm left better off than you (god always yells): GOD: "HEY, BADENP AND MERLYN LEROY, LOOKS LIKE BOTH OF YOU WERE WRONG. THE JEWS WERE RIGHT." BadenP and Merlyn LeRoy: "So what happens now?" GOD: "WELL MERLYN, YOU'RE NOT TOO BAD OFF SINCE YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS I GAVE TO NOAH, WHICH ARE BINDING ON BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES, SO YOU'RE DOING OK, BUT BADENP WORSHIPPED A JEWISH CARPENTER FOR DECADES AS IF HE WERE GOD, WHICH VIOLATES THE FIRST NOACHIDE LAW PROHIBITING IDOLATRY, SO HE'S IN TROUBLE." from my own experiences I choose to believe because I have seen miraculous things happen in my personal life for others as well as myself and I know for my own mind the atheistic philosophy is just plain wrong. Well, I haven't seen anything miraculous. So how's it fair that your god makes his presence obvious to you by violating the laws of physics where you can see it, yet doesn't do this for me? Or are you talking about miracles that don't involve such violations, like fortuitous events? If it's the latter case, I don't see what the miracle is.

SSScout writes: In my small experience, I have not heard of an irreligious CO, not that there may have been, I just have not heard of one. To tie this back into scouting, [Elliot] Welsh v. United States (1970) was about an irreligious CO, when the law only allowed for religious COs (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0398_0333_ZS.html ). The court ruled in his favor, saying that the constitution could not only allow believers in a supreme being CO status (and created the sincerity standard). 20 years later, Elliott Welsh would sue the BSA for excluding him and his son Mark, but the 7th circuit ruled that the BSA was not a public accommodation. Also re: slavery, I'm not saying moral reasons are irrelevant, but that increasing technology erodes the pro-slavery side by making it less and less cost-effective over time. Your Quaker quote even noted that "a free labor society was more productive" (in the late 1700s), but if you go back to ancient Egypt, the pyramids could only have been built (at their size) using slave labor, as they already cost a huge fraction of the entire GNP, and paying thousands of people over decades wouldn't be possible. But today Bill Gates could afford to build a Giza-sized stone pyramid using modern technology for about 5 billion dollars.

Where not some scribes meticulously transcribing their people's encounter over centuries with what seems to have been a very external yet unnervingly personal force, we may very well have been importing servants from our vanquished enemies today. I disagree. In my estimation, slavery* doesn't last long after the introduction of the steam engine. Slaves are cheap, intelligent, but unskilled labor (generally speaking), and you need enforcers to keep them from running away or killing you. But once you have widespread steam power, slavery loses out. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more technologically advanced Britain prohibited slavery long before the less advanced USA, or that the industrial North didn't have slavery while the agrarian South did. Keeping slaves to do work today would be comparable to running a moving company using horse-drawn carts -- you could, but you'd be out-competed by people using better technology. *Referring to slave labor only, not other types like sex slavery or prison labor.

Eagledad writes: Gods laws don't change because he has no selfish desires that change with time. Even if that's true, people simply don't agree what "god's laws" ARE. What people SAY are "god's law" change all the time. And since gods NEVER show up to clarify things, all we EVER have are "what people SAY are god's laws." And like I just said, THAT changes all the time. I advocate everyone starting the discussion at the same place, which is with God. God is fair and just, so starting there starts us in the right direction. People don't AGREE on which gods to start with. I'll start with the Code of Ur-Nammu (oldest legal code known), which is justified by his kingship bestowed by the gods An and Enlil to his father. Kind of a mixed bag: If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner. Eh, sucks. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed. A bit harsh, and has the unwanted side-effect that robbers will be more likely to kill their victims. If a man has cut off another mans foot, he is to pay ten shekels. This one seems too lenient, unless it's only for accidental maiming. About $153, assuming 1 shekel = 11 grams of silver If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. Sucks.

MattR writes: We speak of God because otherwise we run the risk of making relative all that we hold dear. If morality is human in origin then it can be shifted to meet the needs of those in power and adjusted to fit the needs of the powerful. Such as slavery became a moral and ethical benefit according to the slaveholders. This flies in the face of e.g. the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention, which split off in 1845 to preserve that god-ordained peculiar institution of slavery. I take exactly the opposite view; it's important to recognize that morality IS human in origin. As Pascal put it, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." It's one way to absolve oneself of moral responsibility -- it's the same as "I was only following orders" but turned up to the highest degree.

Beavah writes: The BSA went to court to defend its right to remove Mr. Dale, who had in a feature article of a major regional newspaper talked about being actively gay, working with young people exploring their sexuality, and being an assistant scoutmaster working with young boys in da context of the same article. Wrong. There was no mention of scouting or the BSA in the newspaper article. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html Stevens' dissent quotes the actual article: ... BSA has not contended, nor does the record support, that Dale had ever advocated a view on homosexuality to his troop before his membership was revoked. Accordingly, BSAs revocation could only have been based on an assumption that he would do so in the future. But the only information BSA had at the time it revoked Dales membership was a newspaper article describing a seminar at Rutgers University on the topic of homosexual teenagers that Dale attended. The relevant passage reads: James Dale, 19, co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian Gay Alliance with Sharice Richardson, also 19, said he lived a double life while in high school, pretending to be straight while attending a military academy. He remembers dating girls and even laughing at homophobic jokes while at school, only admitting his homosexuality during his second year at Rutgers. I was looking for a role model, someone who was gay and accepting of me, Dale said, adding he wasnt just seeking sexual experiences, but a community that would take him in and provide him with a support network and friends. App. 517. Nothing in that article, however, even remotely suggests that Dale would advocate any views on homosexuality to his troop. The Scoutmaster Handbook instructs Dale, like all Scoutmasters, that sexual issues are not their proper area, and there is no evidence that Dale had any intention of violating this rule. Indeed, from all accounts Dale was a model Boy Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster up until the day his membership was revoked, and there is no reason to believe that he would suddenly disobey the directives of BSA because of anything he said in the newspaper article.

BadenP, bsalegal.org IS an official BSA website: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-400.pdf BSA INTERNET RESOURCES The following is a quick guide to the various Web sites operated by the National Council. Please note that some of these sites are for internal use only and are not meant for a public audience. Legal Issues Site (www.bsalegal.org)This site provides information about the legal issues the BSA is currently facing. Audience: Members and the general public. Like shortridge says (and like I've been saying for years, see e.g. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=32239&p=2), there's still nothing in the materials that normal members get that says gays can't join.

Hey Eagledad, an atheist can't even be a member, not just "not earn rank," according to the BSA. Didn't you just write a week ago: Ahh, the Do the right thing banner again. What is the right thing? Follow the rules, not follow the rules? Doing the right thing is sowing the seeds of anarchy because it pits individuals against each other instead of against the single rule or law. Once doing the right thing becomes acceptable over the law, the guy with the biggest stick wins.

BadenP writes: You miss the point, we can not directly see "gods", but the National Parks for example give us an insight to the power of creation in nature in the formation of these sights that evoke some sort of awe witin ourselves that comes from a force or power far greater than ourselves. I think you're missing my point; atheists can see the same thing, also feel "awe", but still be atheists. You claimed my definition of awe omitted an "essential" element, but it isn't. There really are atheists who feel awe who do not connect that feeling or the cause of that feeling with gods. Kudu writes: The trick is to teach an atheist Scout how to recognize and explain "natural laws" when he sees them, Why do you need a "trick," Kudu? Don't you belong to an organization that says "NO ATHEISTS ALLOWED"? Just kick him out. Oh wait, I just posted this a week ago in issues & politics: http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/potomac_falls_woman_removed_from_sons_boy_scout_troop123/ For some of you who continue to say there's no problem ignoring the rules (which I hear all the time is easily done to admit atheist kids): It's really simple. SM says she's a lesbian -> she gets kicked out kid says he's an atheist -> he gets kicked out But instead people dance around the issue. Why not just kick him out? Problem solved.

BadenP writes: "A feeling of reverence, awe, and respect" is true Merlyn, but your definition lacks an essential element, revering, respecting, awe inspired of what, who, and why. Nope, it just means that things other than gods can be revered. If it is awe of a place, thing or person then the question is why are you in awe of it? It's an emotional reaction. Are you saying anything that causes "awe" has to have a god behind it? Our National Parks are a good example as many people say they are awestruck by the parks beauty and most acknowledge a force greater than themselves are responsible for their creation. And some don't. This doesn't change things. Whether you want to call it scientific forces or a creative force it opens the doors to a myriad of additional questions. In other words the term reverent is not a simple black or white definition, it goes beyond our own basic understanding of the world around us. But it doesn't necessarily involve gods.

"So how would you explain that Reverent is important?" First, I'd get a correct definition; yours of "it means you believe in God" is totally wrong. "Monotheism" means that, but not reverent. reverent: feeling, exhibiting, or characterized by reverence; deeply respectful: a reverent greeting. reverence: a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration. No gods necessarily involved.

Gary_Miller writes: Using Websters Definition. How does an organization choosing its membership based on principles and standards on which the organization wants in it membership fit into the definition of a bigot? Easily; if the "standards" are bigoted. A whites-only organization may say their "standards" require that only whites can join, but I'll still call them bigoted. Why is it that some people not affiliated with an organization seem to think is OK to try and force an organization to change/lower its principles and standards in order for those who don't hold those principles and standards can become members? You'd have to ask someone trying to force such an organization; I've only forced the government to follow the constitution, and I've exercised my first amendment rights to criticize the BSA quite a bit, but I've done nothing to force the BSA to change their bigoted "principles" or "standards." Merlyn_LeRoy, "Would that be the same way thousands of public schools agreed to violate the constitution back when they chartered BSA units that excluded atheists?" Violate the constitution? How does a school allowing BSA to use of their facility violate the constitution? Please note the difference: chartered BSA units is what I said. This is not the same as "allowing BSA to use of their facility." When public schools CHARTERED units, they were violating the constitution.

Gary_Miller writes: Merlyn, one can not change a definition just because it serves their personnel agenda. That works for your definition, too. Never the less if we use your definition then you and anyone else who is affiliated with The Boy Scouts of America is a bigot. Fortunately, I'm not affiliated with the BSA. When the church signed up as a CO they signed on to uphold BSA standards and policies. It was at that time they made their decision. Would that be the same way thousands of public schools agreed to violate the constitution back when they chartered BSA units that excluded atheists? (By the way, I was only pointing out the Beavah that the church didn't decide this; they're certainly running away from any responsibility for this decision. "I was only following orders")

Gary_Miller writes: How can you or anyone accuse BSA of "Bigotry" just because they have set a standard for their membership. I accuse the BSA of bigotry just like I'd accuse a "no Jews" organization of bigotry, even if they defended it on the flimsy grounds that Jews just don't happen to meet their standards of membership (which includes not being a Jew). Beavah writes: It is funny to me to learn that Merlyn really is a religious missionary, eh? He's not content to let a conservative church set its own standards for membership, as they by all accounts did in this case. No Beavah, it wasn't the CHURCH that decided this (from the article): Phil Holliday, the executive pastor at Christian Fellowship Church and Esther Schaeffer, the charter organization representative, say they are simply following the rules. When a chartered partner agrees to sponsor a scouting unit, an annual charter agreement is signed, they explained. In the contract, they agree to provide a place for a meeting, select volunteer leaders and follow the policies and guidelines established by the Boy Scouts of America. We are simply doing what we agreed to do in our charter, Schaeffer said. See? The church is saying that the BSA's rules are FORCING them, it wasn't their decision.

Should the same tolerance be applied to polygamous "life partnerships"? I wasn't aware there was a BSA rule against them, at least heterosexual ones. Another secret rule from an unpublished memo?

Gary_Miller writes: The SM was wrong when he said "there was no problem". Although he may not have a personal problem with it, BSA standard does and as a BSA leader he should support BSA standards. The correct response should have been, "BSA standards does not support the Homosexual life style so you can not be a leader." It does not get any simpler than that. Now ask this crowd what happens with a 13-year-old who says he's an atheist. Lots of them will say he can join. And to all the people who say that the national BSA had nothing to do with this, all you have to go on is an official statement from a BSA official. And by the way Beavah, like I said, this issue is NEVER going to go away; people will NEVER stop complaining about the BSA's bigotry. Your "get over it" is useless.

Assuming I can parse that, are you saying an atheist youth couldn't be thrown out in exactly the same way? I am saying that as a youth, you are a youth. You are not athiest until you are 18. You arew not gay, you are not Bi you are not anything but a youth...until you are 18. Assuming I can parse that, are you saying an atheist youth couldn't be thrown out in exactly the same way? Now here's the thing. WEther it actually happens does not mean it is supposed to happen. Well, I'm under the impression that atheist youth are "supposed" to be refused membership.

scoutfish writes: Apples and oranges. Scoutds are not adult leaders are not scouts. Assuming I can parse that, are you saying an atheist youth couldn't be thrown out in exactly the same way? Beavah writes: despite what has to be by now the completely well known and obvious policy of the BSA and of that church. That unwritten policy you mean? The one the SM told her there was no problem? You mean like those easily-ignorable policies that people here insist are no problem to ignore for atheist kids? Yeh don't really believe that a conservative Christian church should be forced to take all comers as leaders in their program, do yeh? Of course not. But you're one of the people who seem to think that units can keep people who don't meet the membership requirements. Get over it. Get over what? You think this issue is ever, ever going to go away? It's NEVER going away.

http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/potomac_falls_woman_removed_from_sons_boy_scout_troop123/ For some of you who continue to say there's no problem ignoring the rules (which I hear all the time is easily done to admit atheist kids): Steele approached the scout master, Mike Tucker, to inform him of her partnership of nearly two decades with Funk. He told her there was no problem. The way Steele and Funk explain it is the reason why her homosexuality was overlooked was due to locality local organizations can choose to overlook some of the Boy Scouting standards. ...according to Steele and Funk, Inabinett went straight to the Boy Scouts of America with his complaint to get her removed as an assistant scout master and it worked. He didnt go through those steps. He skipped over the scout master, he skipped over the committee, he skipped over the district. He went straight to the highest level because thats where he would get his answer. He went to the highest point to get me removed, Steele said. Oh, and witch hunts never, ever happen: Even other assistant scout masters from Steeles troop felt it was vindictive, like Joe Leonard. I saw that he was vindictive and on a witch hunt because he asked her personal friends what her sexuality was. So one vindictive ASM apparently doesn't follow proper channels and goes on a witch hunt to throw out a lesbian, even though a lot of people want her to stay. The BSA would never stand for a personal vendetta, right? Oh, wrong. She's out, of course. According to the article, she can't even go on campouts with her son, even as a parent.

Why does that make a difference, if they also say they didn't do it, and if they actually didn't do it? Are you saying our judicial system is perfect?

nldscout, can I get your real name, so if I'm ever in court, I can strike you with cause from any jury judging me? You might be interested that one of the people working for years to free them is the father of one of the victims; having the local government ignore DNA evidence and instead act on "satanic ritual" stupidity is no way to find actual criminals. From one of the writs filed: Of great significance, a hair containing mitochondrial DNA consistent with that of Terry Hobbs, a stepfather of one of the victims (Branch), was found on the ligature used to bind another of the victims (Moore). Another hair found on a tree root at the scene where the bodies were discovered contains mitochondrial DNA consistent with that of David Jacoby; Hobbs was with Jacoby in the hours before and after the victims disappeared. Years before the DNA link between Hobbs and the crime scene was discovered, Pam Hobbs, the mother of Branch, came forth with evidence that she believed linked Terry, her former husband, to the murders. And John Douglas, former chief of the Investigative Support Unit of the FBI for twenty five years, has done an offender analysis of the murders which could readily apply to Hobbs but not to any of the three convicted as teenagers in this case. And they didn't plead guilty, they pled "no contest."