Merlyn_LeRoy

camilan42 writes: @ TomTrailblazer, "I believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, but I also think the current BSA policy is wrong." ... if you believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, why would you expose Scouts to it? What you are suggesting is akin to saying, "I believe that chicken pox is unhealthy, but I also think that the current school policy is wrong." You wouldn't have that child exposed to chicken pox would you, knowing the outcome? I think a better analogy would be smoking. Presumably, the BSA considers smoking to be unhealthy, yet they don't prohibit smokers from being adult leaders. And chicken pox IS unhealthy, yet people DID deliberately expose their own children to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

So far, I haven't seen any story mention if the land is part of the sale, all of them just refer to the building: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20101118_Philadelphia_would_sell_building_to_Boy_Scouts_under_proposed_settlement.html Philadelphia would stop trying to evict the Cradle of Liberty Council Boy Scouts from its headquarters near Logan Square and instead sell the building to the organization at a cut-rate price, thereby ending a nearly decadelong dispute, under a proposed settlement. The city-owned building, which the scouts have occupied for 80 years, would be sold for $500,000. Both sides agree its appraised value is at least $1 million. In return, the scouts would not seek $1 million in compensation from Philadelphia that they are entitled to under federal law. ... The scouts would have two years to buy the building. In the meantime, the Cradle of Liberty Council would limit its operations to those the city believes do not discriminate. Harrington said that meant no "traditional" scouting programs would be run out of the building and that most employees would vacate their offices until the scouts became the legal owners. ...

Any sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy falls apart whenever there are third parties who can also "tell," which is pretty much all the time.

Rockford8070 writes: I know that people have been required by the court to attend a set number of AA classes after a DUI. This has been struck down by the courts in a number of cases. Yet I've never heard one bit of protest by the atheists over the AA program. You haven't looked. Google AA atheism and you'll find pages. And once again skeptic, civil rights are important, even though you keep trying to trivialize the rights of atheists by babbling about it being "PC"-ness. Bite my "PC"-ness.

That's an absurd rationalization. This is a non-scouting issue.

What does this have to do with scouting issues?

Yep, too much equal protection and the wrong sorts of people will think they're equal...

Scoutfish writes: At one time, scientists had absolutely no doubt at all whatsoever Anyone with "absolutely no doubt at all whatsoever" is not doing science. All scientific conclusions are provisional. that the world was flat, Which scientists were these? Eratosthenes not only concluded that the Earth was round, he measured the circumference ca. 240 BCE.

WAKWIB writes: "Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a non-religious/atheist view?" Absolutely yes, Merlyn. A person could be created and endowed by their creator with the powers of observation, reason, logic etc. They can also be endowed by the same creator with the unalienable right to not believe in or acknowledge that creator. My creators were my parents. Then what did you mean by: 1)There is no god 2)Humans are simply high-order primates With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all.

WAKWIB writes: Merlyn. Does it really have to be either/or? Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a religious/god view? Sure; but you seem to be denying the possibility of the converse: 1)There is no god 2)Humans are simply high-order primates With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all. Could someone still think about these things and work them out in society and still hold a non-religious/atheist view? The founders of the United States of America led off their conversation of what our govenment/laws should look like with the premise "that all men were created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." This sounds like an appeal to some kind of deity to me. "Creator" is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, and in any case they didn't quite follow through or they wouldn't have created the 3/5ths compromise.

WAKWIB writes: How did we get the the ability to think about these things and decide what is best? I don't know. Do you advocate that we should NOT think about these things and decide what is best, and instead just follow some religion that purports to have morals dictated by a god?

WAKWIB writes: If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction. Again, you are just making assertions instead of showing how you reach your conclusions. For just one example, food, shelter, and reproduction are much more successful in a society that has laws against murder & theft, so having rules against that would make that society more likely to thrive (and possibly outlive another society that didn't have such rules). Right there is an example of why moral codes exist. "If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?" I'd say it's plain old human emotions like empathy. If we get our morality from gods, why don't gods agree on basic moral questions like polygamy? How are humans supposed to tell which god is right?

WAKWIB writes: 1)There is no god 2)Humans are simply high-order primates With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all. No, that doesn't "follow" at all; it's a complete non-sequitur. You need to show your logic, not just assert your conclusion.

No Ed, marriage really is a right under US law; the supreme court said specifically that it is a right. Ignore reality if you like.

Beavah writes: Da BSA has the option to set its criteria for leadership positions within its own organization. Other organizations may set different criteria. Reversing Dale in da courts means no local option for any private organization. Depends on what reasoning is used to reverse Dale, and how it's reversed. I'd say the most likely way to reverse it is to state that the BSA is not a private organization, but a public accommodation. "Real" private organizations can still discriminate. Dale should have gone against the BSA in the first place based on the BSA's decades-long practice of chartering units to government organizations. There's no such thing as private clubs that can discriminate in ways prohibited to the government while simultaneously having the government own & operate such private clubs.

Beavah writes: What yeh want here is to lobby to change the law. To convince other people of the fairness and reasonableness of that, eh? That's da proper way to change the marriage statutes, to convince your fellow citizens. There are no short-cuts. No Beavah, Loving vs. Virginia took a "short cut", way before a majority wanted to recognize mixed-race marriages. But that's one thing courts do -- they demand that the law be followed, even if some people don't like the implications. Some state judiciaries have done this with gay marriage. PS: John-In-KC, I was in LA since Wednesday night for the Firesign Theatre shows in Hollywood. I had read about this more than a week ago but didn't post anything since there wasn't much really new.

I'd like to know what she intends to do with those boy scouts...

Some do Ed, otherwise there wouldn't be any instances of atheists being thrown out or refused membership. But the "humor" in Beavah's remark strikes me as similar to someone in a worldwide whites-only organization pointing out that they don't have many branches in Africa, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk, so I suppose the humor is in discriminating against fellow human beings. Yeah, that's always good for a laugh.

So which is the amusing part Beavah, the religious discrimination or the totalitarianism?

You just wrote: "whoever yells the loudest wins" mentality Merlyn seems to have and I denied it, Ed.

I don't have such a policy Ed, that's why I post links, and actually quote what people write instead of making vague accusations.

No Ed, there are quite a few instances where you have demonstrated that you can't learn. For one example, you have complained that the ACLU had sued to remove a manger scene but not to remove a menorah; I pointed out that the ACLU sued to have both removed, but the courts only ruled to remove the manger. Yet you have made the same complaint even after being told this.

They aren't contradictory, Ed. Notice that the first statement only refers to whether I have any interest in joining the BSA. That doesn't contradict my second statement, where I say I have no interest in joining the BSA. And Ed, if a public school runs a club that doesn't allow atheists, the fact that atheists can't join is discriminating against them. But you're ineducable.

Re-read the statements Ed, they aren't contradictory. And removing school charters ended discrimination against atheists by public schools.

Ed writes: How would you know Merlyn? You have stated you have no interest in joining the BSA. You might notice that the statements I made are unrelated to whether I have any interest in joining the BSA, and can be attributed entirely to, e.g. reading. And when asked why an atheist would want to join the BSA, you claim ignorance even though you claim to be defending the rights of atheists! I didn't claim ignorance, I kept asking you why you expected me to know, since I am not an atheist who wants to join the BSA. If you were actually defending the rights of atheists and not just your own, you would know why atheists would want to join the BSA. Why would I know that, Ed? Is that part of your imaginary "defending atheists' rights" packet that you mail out? And by the way Ed, when I helped the ACLU remove school charters, that was defending the rights of atheists, and it didn't really have anything to do with my personal rights since these were schools all across the country, so there's a counterexample right there. You make really bizarre, non-sequitur assumptions, Ed.