Merlyn_LeRoy

And by the way vol_scouter, you continue to, at best, misstate what I've said. In the Taoist thread, I never commented on actual cases ("how boys of particular religious backgrounds are handled in Scouting insisting that they were handled in one manner when several (many?) Scouters said that was not the case.") I only kept pointing out the obvious fact that, since Taoist CAN ALSO BE atheists, that Taoists who also happen to be atheists don't meet the BSA's membership requirements and could suddenly find themselves thrown out. And Beavah's cloying, paternalistic "offers" were never genuine, and he usually brought up his fake concern when I would point out that he was ignoring the rights of atheist kids.

vol_scouter admitted in this forum to making up a lie about me and posting it in the Taoist thread. I do not understand why he hasn't been removed.

No, but I'd say they were discriminated on the basis of marital status. By the way Ed, how would it work if someone was forced to join a club they could not join? What would happen?

Wrong again, Ed.

That's what it's called. If you're discriminated against because you're single, that is similarly discrimination on marital status. That doesn't mean you're married. Laws that cover "discrimination on the basis of religion" include atheists.

Refusing to allow someone to join a school-run club because they don't hold acceptable religious views is "religious discrimination."

Ed, "moron" is not namecalling if you really are a moron.

vol_scouter writes: The studies, not I, concluded that the disease is primarily a disease of male homosexuals, IV drug abusers, and female prostitutes who were likely to have contracted the disease from IV drug abuse. If you have issues, contact the authors. You know, if you had said this from the outset, I would have had no issue with it at all. However, you didn't say that the first time.

Where, or who, is ignoring or denying the first amendment in this nation today? Please be specific enough so lawsuit(s) can be filed.

By discriminating against them on the basis of their religion, (Deleted, OGE) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

What beliefs are you referring to? The BSA doesn't have any theological tenets apart from trivial lip-service to some sort of vague theism as far as I know. If the BSA decided to start excluding Jews tomorrow, apart from that specific exclusion, would that make the entire BSA program (otherwise completely unchanged) somehow counter to Jewish beliefs all of a sudden?

Isn't the gorilla's weight just one aspect?

I do have a very strong interest in fighting for the civil rights of atheists. Maybe you noticed.

vol_scouter writes: The issue is which category is a prostitute who uses IV drugs placed when they contract HIV/AIDS. The studies that I have read in the past indicated that they would be classified as heterosexual transmission rather than IV drug abuse. Did the studies state why this was done, or what percentage of hookers were IV drug users at the time of contracting HIV/AIDS, or what percentage of hookers make up the total of heterosexual transmission? If not, you're making unwarranted assumptions. ... All of the studies indicate that vaginal sex has a low transmission rate. Anal sex is the most dangerous since there are epithelial cells with CD4 receptors so that the virus has a binding site. If that was not the case, there would be a widespread epidemic of HIV/AIDS since it is currently not curable. This is clearly not the case. The point is that male homosexuals lifestyle has some risks that others are not likely to face. You seem to be making the very incorrect assumption that only homosexual males have anal sex. Male/female anal sex would be "heterosexual transmission". Why are you making such an incorrect assumption?

Sherminator writes: But seriously, Merlyn. If the BSA were to suddenly say that athiests were now allowed, would you join? Why or why not? Probably not, simply due to lack of interest. The most likely scenario would have been back when my son was younger, if he had had an interest in joining.

OK Ed, you think public schools can, legally, own & operate whites-only swim teams, and doing so doesn't violate anyone's civil rights. I disagree.

Ed, you said there's a big difference, but you haven't said what that difference IS. Nobody has to join a whites-only swim team, right? A whites-only swim team could be a part of a private organization that only allows whites to join, and allows public schools to sponsor swim clubs, right? So now you have whites-only swim teams run by public schools, right?

How is a whites-only swim team a violation of anyone's rights Ed? Nobody is required to join the whites-only swim team. Just how many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times will you need to be told until you learn?

Beavah writes: Merlyn, I have no interest in having an argument with you. It's a bit like debating chores with a child, eh? Ah, the usual mindless insults, instead of any real intellectual content. Beavah, I guess you're just too upset that I pointed out all your recent errors. You said marriage was not a right (and for which you gave no cites), and I showed you up by posting links to actual supreme court decisions stating that marriage IS a right under US law. You make completely unspecific claims that the Martinez decision could have made it legal for public schools to charter BSA units if the decision had gone the other way, and I specifically pointed out just a few of the problems with that comparison. You had no comeback to that except to weakly reiterate your unchanged opinion. Yes, you certainly ARE uninterested in having an argument with me; you offer NO basis for your erroneous opinions, and toss off childish insults when challenged. Yes, it's very much like debating with a child. A child with a childish fake accent.

Beavah writes: Merlyn, vol_scouter is da medical professional and expert who actually read the studies instead of just Googling the CDC. He explained why you were wrong, not me. He hasn't explained why I was wrong; his most recent post in this thread was: The last studies (a few years ago) that I read stated that the majority of the heterosexual transmission was in prostitutes. Those studies noted that the incidence of IV drug abuse is very high among prostitutes but they were counted in the heterosexual transmission. The main mode of transmission is anal intercourse and IV drug abuse. For some reason, vol_scouter doesn't want to count hookers transmitting HIV/AIDS to customers as heterosexual transmission, but he hasn't offered any justification for that. It plainly IS heterosexual transmission.

Beavah, I pointed out just a few of the differences; you, as usual, have offered nothing in terms of rebuttal. It looks like you don't even know how to have an argument.

Beavah writes: So as a strategy for getting da BSA to change its practice, or to adopt "local option" it was inept No, you STILL DON'T GET IT. Civil rights violations aren't "strategies." They are violations that have to cease immediately. Any fallout from that has to be dealt with on a separate basis. What you (and everyone else) cannot do is allow it for some political gain. SCOTUS, after all, just came within one vote of requiring public schools to accommodate and sponsor religious groups on an equal basis, so da notion that optionally doing so is illicit is quite a stretch. Sorry, your ignorance of US law is showing. Again. I assume (since you're still too gutless to offer your actual opinion) that you're referring to Martinez. Even if the court ruled the other way, that doesn't resemble a BSA charter. The school would not be selecting the leadership of the Christian Legal Society, as they would as the chartering organization of the BSA unit, for one thing. Plus the school would not be entering into an agreement to practice religious discrimination, in contrast to a BSA charter agreement. All Martinez would do is require that schools offer equal financing to every group, even groups that discriminate, NOT own & operate discriminatory groups. (fix phrasing)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Beavah writes: Government-recognized marriage is not a "right." Hey, again Beavah shows his ignorance of US legal decisions: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1 ... The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374 ... the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry ... Under US law, marriage IS a "right." You might not agree with that, or you might not like it, but stating Government-recognized marriage is not a "right" is, flatly, wrong.

Beavah writes: That's why I always felt the hacks who insisted on pulling public school charters were some of da worst policy strategists I'd ever met. Beavah, civil rights aren't a "game," as much as you appear to want to treat them as such. Public schools CANNOT practice religious discrimination, period, end of sentence. NO public school can charter a BSA unit that requires atheists to be excluded. Glad to see removing 10,000 public school charters still galls you, though.

Beavah writes: Merlyn is again quoting sources that he doesn't fully understand. There's comfort in that kind of fundamentalist notion that all da information is in the text, but that's only true for one Text, if any Beavah, I notice all you did was try to imply that I'm wrong, without actually having the guts to state it outright or even state what part of my statement was wrong. You keep doing this, as if you're an "expert" in whatever the current argument is about, yet you're too cowardly to put forth your own take on it. The CDC spells out AIDS transmission pretty clearly, and if you have other information, post that, or shut up. You usually add nothing to a conversation except a lame fake hick accent.