Merlyn_LeRoy

SeattlePioneer writes: Frankly, this is exactly the kind of invidious discrimination that is most offensive. So what are you going to do about it? I got rid of thousands of illegal, discriminatory BSA units chartered to public schools; are you going to do anything about this, or just whine?

So organizations with 15 or less employees could discriminate by hiring temporary lifeguards as independent contractors. I agree, but that isn't what you wrote before: The rub would come if lifeguards are required which is likely. So if the group uses the pool's lifeguards, they should not be able to discriminate. They could hire their own lifeguards, which once again they cannot discriminate. It is no surprise that Seattle Pioneer confirms that the left does not observe its' own laws. When did "the left" end up managing all public pools in Seattle?

SeattlePioneer writes: They clearly feel free to ignore their own rules when they choose to do so. They apply their non discrimination rules in a discriminatory way. So are you planning to file a lawsuit?

vol_scouter writes: They could hire their own lifeguards, which once again they cannot discriminate. On what do you base this? Most antidiscrimination laws in the US apply to private organizations that employ 15 or more people.

SeattleBunioneer writes: When you rent a pool for an hour you rent the pool under the Federal and State laws, city ordinances and park department rules, all of which prohibit sex discrimination. Are you sure that private parties have to follow those rules? That would prohibit BSA units from renting a pool, or a classroom, because they discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, and sexual orientation. If someone wants to rent a pool for a birthday party, does the nondiscrimination clause mean they have to admit the general public to their party? If they don't, are you claiming they would be breaking the law if they only invited girls (or boys) to the party? I'd like a cite for your assertion; I don't think you're correct.

Seattle Parks & Recreation charges an hourly fee for lifeguards when pools are rented out, so presumably the people renting the pool get to specify who they want to hire for lifeguards, just like when the Seattle-area naturalists rent out a pool for a naked swim would choose lifeguards who aren't alarmed by naked people swimming. Doesn't look like a violation to me.

Good thing the BSA still views youth as Asexual Why would that be a good thing?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Scouts-get-prepared-for-more.6779839.jp ... Britain's best-known youth organisation is keen to dispel the myth that homosexuals cannot join the organisation and as part of this it has produced a document entitled 'It's OK to be gay and a Scout!' The leader of the Scout Association has also filmed a video message stating that homophobic bullying will not be tolerated. In a further repudiation of the organisation's austere, militaristic origins members and leaders have also been granted permission to attend gay pride parades in uniform. ...

jrush writes: Merlyn, the BSA has to define "atheist" somehow. Either that or don't use the term to explain their membership requirements. In fact, in many cases, the BSA does NOT use the term "atheist" to describe their membership requirements. They can't say "someone who believes God doesn't exist", because that could exclude Buddhists and other accepted non-theist faiths. Well, that's the corner they've painted themselves into. If they're going to insist on belief in a god (or at least one god; it isn't clear if polytheists are considered to meet the requirements), then yes, that would eliminate some people, including some Buddhists. If my definition of atheist "one believes that nothing exists" may be "off the wall" according to you, but it really doesn't matter. I have a particular definition that I believe fits with BSA policy and the Scout Law by allowing me to be accepting of non-theist faiths. Your personal definition of "atheist" is up to you. I prefer a sane definition; "one believes that nothing exists" might describe a very extreme solipsist, but it doesn't have anything to do with atheism. If you just don't want to reject anyone for being an atheist, just use a definition like "a person who is over 18 miles tall" or something. Whether your personal definition matches up with what the BSA policy implies is central to the discussion; it's why, as Old Ox said, national hasn't just handed this ball to CO's to handle as they see fit. For example, some people consider Buddhists and other non-theists to be atheists, and they could be supported by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Some Buddhists are atheists, sure. By the way, why is my personal definition of atheism central to the discussion, but your personal definition isn't? Using your definition, Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist. You and I don't get to decide who an atheist is in the BSA, no matter what your dictionary says...only the individual can indentify themselves as such, which brings us back to the young lad the OP told us about. Did the boy claim to be an atheist, or did he make a statement which fits in with someone's personal or dictionary-supplied definition? The DRP doesn't use the term "atheist," so why are you totally fixated on that one word?

As usual, Beavah simply ignores the parts of the article he doesn't like, and it's as if those parts don't even exist anymore.

Vicki writes: Jrush, you need to study Buddhism a bit more thoroughly. Buddhists do not believe in a creator god. However, the Buddha is venerated as the embodiment of the supreme essence come to earth in at least one, if not more, strains of Buddhism. Not the Christian understanding, nor theist, per se, but definitely recognizing something beyond oneself. Vicki, you might want to study Buddhism a bit more, too. Not ALL Buddhists regard Buddha that way. You can find atheist Buddhists (or maybe they're Buddhist atheists). I agree that jrush's definition (not to mention spelling of) atheist is totally off-the-wall.

Or maybe he just "interprets" the rules so it's never possible to exclude anyone for being gay or an atheist: http://triblocal.com/joliet/2011/05/10/rainbow-council-boy-scouts-weighs-name-change/ ... Davidson said the Rainbow Council is accepting of everyone, despite the national councils historic stances against gays and atheists. The only thing that I know is that its our obligation as board members to explore any and all options to increase the numbers of kids that are served by our program, whether they be black, white, orange, left-handed, handicapped, gay, it doesnt matter, said Davidson, who noted that the Rainbow Council has the second lowest participation rate of all Chicago area councils.

Scoutfish writes: EXACTLY! And the thing is, I cannot use my version of what the boy considers to mean God, or my terms to decide the way he uses the word God. Only HE can decide WHAT HIS VERSION IS AND WHAT IT MEANS TO HIM. The same goes for the term "atheist", as early Christians were branded as atheists because they didn't acknowledge the emperor as a god. So even if he unambiguously stated that he was an atheist, you can still play games with what HE means by "atheist." Or "believes." And that still doesn't settle anything, because not all BSA pronouncements on their religious membership requirements even USE the term "atheist," like their resolution from Feb 6, 2002.

Scoutfish writes: WEll, first, he'd have to actually say that he is an athiest. So you don't accept saying absolutely and definitively that there is no God? He has to use a specific (albeit misspelled) word? Even that restrictive requirement doesn't help, since the BSA is a bit more flexible in who they kick out; indicating that you don't believe in a god, even if you don't use the term "atheist", is enough. Well, what if in a hypothetical situation, the boy was an alien from Mars? What if he was an actual Hindu god. He could still say he doesn't believe in God, but he sure wouldn't be an athiest. Are you claiming that no aliens from Mars are atheists? Point is, you see everything as either Believing in "God" or athiest. Nothinmg else. Wrong; there are also polytheists. However, how would you classify someone who states that absolutely and definitively that there is no God? A theist? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Think they MIGHT be an atheist? But that's your flawed logic.There is so much more in between. People are not constrained by how you think. And BSA recognizes that . People are not constrained in the way I think, BSA recognizes that too. That's where the whole Non secular thing comes in. Non secular? Don't you mean non-sectarian? Which isn't the correct term, either. By saying that, they recognize that people might be reverent to and believe in a higher power without believing in a single "God" . Spine? Are you kidding me? I have not waivers oine bit inmy arguements to you. Your deteriorating typing and spelling say otherwise. Yet you swing back and forth and argue hypotheticals You just used one too, hypocrite. and use what the ACLU and other athiets say as proof as to what BSA thinks. No, I use what BSA officials have said in court. Like Larry Otto's deposition. You say BSA thinks this or that, yet the people from BSA tell you otherwise every time. People who don't set policy. By the way, do you agree that official BSA policy is that atheist youths can't join? You do not have teh spine to admit the world is more than your thoughts and opinions and you do not recognize that there is ALOT of grey in between. There's plenty of gray, but calling bright chartreuse "gray" is too much. If a kid states absolutely and definitively that there is no God, and the BSA requires that members believe in (at least one) god, he doesn't seem to qualify. But you feel the need to stop, squash and destroy those who do not feel or agree with your own beliefs. You cannot stand people to be diferent or be happy with their own ideals or opinions. It scares you! No, I see a bunch of people refusing to enforce the BSA's odious membership requirements. Now tell me who has spinal isseus!! You're the one getting bent out of shape. I'm stating the bleeding obvious: 1) a kid who says absolutely and definitively that there is no God is an atheist 2) the BSA doesn't allow kids like him to be members You just don't have the spine to enforce the rules. But you also don't have the spine to admit you're deliberately ignoring the rules. "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." -- U.S. Grant -

Scoutfish writes: "The BSA's stance, taken from what their representatives have said under oath, is that six-year-olds who are atheists can't join." Is that an exact qoute There IS no quote in what I wrote above. A quote usually has quote marks to mark the quotes. That's why they're called quote marks. They mark quotes. or did you put it in your terms Merlyn? Don't run from the question. Like everyone is running from whether this kid is an atheist? That kind of running? Or maybe how you didn't answer my question: "How clear can the BSA make their policy, anyway?" Do you think the BSA allows youth who are atheists? Go ahead, look up the testimony from the Powell case. BSA officials stated that Remington Powell couldn't join if he was an atheist. Check Larry Otto's (Scout Executive for the Cascade Pacific Council) deposition. The ACLU cites that here: http://www.aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/Lit_Pow_rview_pet_12_02.pdf "Persons who state that they are atheists or agnostics are not eligible to join the Boy Scouts at any level, including Cub Scouts. (CR 78, Otto Depo. at 50.)" "If, for example, someone was insisting they aren't breaking the "no atheists" rule by using very contorted arguments to justify allowing a kid who has very clearly stated he's an atheist..." What? How do you figure? When and where did the boy "CLEARLY " say he was an athiest? Who? You mean my hypothetical example? Do you even know what "if, for example" means? Where did you get that Info? What info? It's a hypothetical example. Not bthe OP who said ( and I quote) : " this kid said absolutely and definitively that there was no God." But you know, a person who truely believs in Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, and Lakshmi do not believe in "God" either. They will tell you that our god does not exist. Because to them, our "God" is not any god at all, just a false prophet or just a case of senility on our poart. So a boy can very definantly say there is no God, but be the furthesat thing from an athiest there is. And that's where BSA's policy on being non secular does in fact welcome that boy completely! Which is why there's nine pages of argument on whether he does, in fact, meet the membership requirements? Oh wait, you were using some sort of made-up, hypothetical example, of someone who believes in gods from 2 other religions, yet gives no hint of that and instead states "absolutely and definitively that there was no God." Odd how you couldn't detect my hypothetical example. Scoutfish, I hope your spine is OK from all this bending-over-backwards you're doing. Is there any way a kid could convince you he's an actual atheist? Not that I can see. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Scoutfish writes: Merlyn, did they actually say that under oath. Just like that? Are you quoting, or are those your terms? In the Powell case, BSA representatives testified under oath that 6-year-old Remington Powell would not be allowed to join because he was an atheist. This is from the finding of fact in Powell v. Bunn: Because the Scout Oath and general scouting principles require a belief in God, persons who do not have that belief, such as atheists, are not eligible for membership. Although a belief in God is necessary for membership, the organization is otherwise nondenominational. And as a registered member of the BSA in good standing.....am I not also a representative of BSA? You don't set membership requirements. You CAN, of course, ignore rules you don't like. I just prefer people to state they are ignoring rules rather than come up with ridiculous justifications so they can pretend they really aren't ignoring rules, when they clearly are. If, for example, someone was insisting they aren't breaking the "no atheists" rule by using very contorted arguments to justify allowing a kid who has very clearly stated he's an atheist, I'm not going to be very reassured if I ask him how stringently he observes, say, water safety rules or youth protection -- for all I know, he bends these rules beyond recognition, too. I'd feel a lot better if he admits up front that he's ignoring the "no atheists" rule, instead of demonstrating how "creatively" he can interpret it. How clear can the BSA make their policy, anyway? National's response to lawsuits on behalf of atheist minors has always been that atheists can't join. They fight in court to either remove atheist youth members (the Randall twins) or to prevent them from joining (the Powell case). They lost thousands of public schools as chartering organizations rather than allow atheists. What would it take for you to be convinced?

scoutfish writes: BSA's stance is ( is the most simplest of laymens terms): UNtil they are 18 and of legal adult age...anything they say is not taken as an absolute final statement. No, that's not the BSA's stance; it might be your stance. The BSA's stance, taken from what their representatives have said under oath, is that six-year-olds who are atheists can't join.

That's funny, qwazse, there are quite a few atheists who were forced to attend church when they were 10 years old, because they were 10 years old. Just google "atheist forced church" and you'll find lots of real-world examples. How many 10-year-old atheists do you know, anyway? The BSA requirement isn't to attend church, it's a belief requirement, and assuming "this kid said absolutely and definitively that there was no God" is an accurate summary, it's just more of the same bizarre doubletalk to avoid having to enforce an idiotic BSA rule. Why not just admit you're ignoring the rule? Why insult the kid's intellectual integrity by trying to say he really isn't an atheist?

OK, how about robot marriage? Tokyo couple married by robot in rooftop wedding http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8685184.stm

Well, I guess this shows how desperately people ignore awkward rules. Rather than respect the kid's decision (which, oddly enough wouldn't even begin to be questioned if he believed in invisible superbeings), paternalistically assume he's a bit stupid, or he hasn't really thought about it, because obviously he'd come around to seeing the existence of invisible superbeings, or he's lying, or ANYTHING other than actually being an atheist. Because that would mean he'd get kicked out. This is dumber than "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

As marriage is a civil right under US law, societal effects would only come into play if they meet the compelling state interest standard. Judging by how little e.g. Massachusetts has changed with gay marriage for years, I think it would be difficult to argue that there's much of anything compelling enough to limit people's civil rights.

EagleDad, Obama published his birth certificate ages ago; he published what every other Hawaiian-born person gets. He had to go outside the normal channels to get his long form BC, just as any other Hawaiian who would try to get theirs.

So SeattlePioneer, does this mean you're against gay marriage because it would affect your non-marriage?

BS-87, your requirements would also have excluded McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Beavah, people who were citizens of the US at the time the constitution was adopted didn't need to meet the natural born requirement.

Then they can allow no clubs. EVERYBODY discriminates on the basis of religion. Woapalanne, a club that has religious requirements for membership discriminates on the basis of religion (e.g. the BSA). A club that doesn't have such requirements isn't discriminating on the basis of religion. Beavah writes: It's not a student club I know. I pointed it out to you. You wrote "A school can sponsor an LGBT club with public dollars" and then didn't give an example of such a club. Fact is, under the law, schools can sponsor LGBT groups directly. Fact is, you haven't given an example of a school sponsoring a LGBT club with public dollars. So da status quo is untenable, and leads to all da ugliness and incivility we've seen. If you "win" then groups that are offensive to you are banned from public support and the public schools and the public square Well, again you have to lie about me by falsely claiming I'd ban groups that are "offensive" to me from public schools and the public square. You just want to "win." I think that's just uncivil and foolish. Deliberately lying about my intentions is pretty damn uncivil, Beavah.