Merlyn_LeRoy

Oh, I admit I'm assuming that the BSA would kick out atheists the same way they kicked out Dale. Did you have a point?

Which James Dale do you mean? The gay one?

Eagledad, you didn't appear to know of any way for someone to be known as an atheist without them saying they're an atheist. I showed you how that was possible, using an analogy with how Dale got kicked out the BSA without him stating he was gay. Now, I don't know of any cases where something like this has happened with an atheist member of the BSA, but you didn't ask for an actual case, you opined on how it could even be possible. So I came up with a plausible scenario.

Eagledad, you're familiar with analogies? James Dale never stated he was gay, yet he was kicked out. You had asked "How could that not be true? How would anyone know otherwise?" and I gave you one, using Dale as an example of how people can be kicked out without announcing anything. Apparently, your questions weren't genuine.

A one-word answer to a trick question? There is no "atheist" box to check. Did you not understand my example? Suppose a BSA member, who hasn't said he's an atheist, appears in a school newspaper story as a member of a school atheist club. There's an example of someone who hasn't stated he's an atheist. Which is what you asked for, as far as I can tell. James Dale didn't say he was gay to someone in his troop, he was in a college newspaper story as one of the heads of a gay group.

Eagledad, how about something similar to the Dale case? Say, a school newspaper story on an atheist group, and one of the members of that group is also in the BSA.

vol_scouter, I'm intolerant towards the BSA because the BSA denigrates atheists, and still continues to illegally charter some of their units to government entities. You I don't like personally, because you lied about me in an attempt to smear me. I'll change my attitude towards the BSA when the BSA stops denigrating and excluding atheists, not before. I don't consider it bigoted to be against an organization that denigrates a class of people. Gern, you're correct in that BSA officials have said that atheist boys can't join. The idea that only atheists obnoxious enough to state that they're atheists are kept out is a false one to put a better face on the BSA's religious requirements.

vol_scouter writes: Your anger is palpable. I overstated my point and apologized. You blatantly slandered me, with absolutely no grounds for your contemptible lie. You didn't "overstate your point," you simply MADE UP CRAP ABOUT ME and vomited it into this forum. I have never seen you apologize or even be willing to admit that you are wrong as in the current case. Well, I don't go around MAKING UP UTTER LIES about people I've never met and post them on public forums. YOU, however, do so. You do it probably because you don't like me. Do you make up lies about other people you don't like? Hey, why not? Sure, slander people just because they tic you off for some reason. Real good example of a scout you are.

vol_scouter, I do not get paid and I do not accept your pathetic excuse for an apology. Maybe you should stop slandering people and act honestly. Scoutfish, you apparently missed where I said that the parts that talk about adult leaders don't change this line: "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership." Yes, elsewhere it talks about adult leadership. I SAID it did. However, that line quoted above does not. If it only applies to adults and adult membership, why does it say "persons" and "membership" instead of "adults" and "adult membership"? As for expert opinion in this forum, there are still people who think public schools can charter discriminatory BSA units legally. That's about par for this group.

vol_scouter, I don't get paid for my platelets. It's just like you to just make up complete crap in an effort to mindlessly slander me. I bet you kill dogs in your spare time, eh? Beavah, I'm only quoting what the BSA's own youth membership form says, and it says you have to subscribe to the precepts of the DRP to be granted membership. The other statements you quote don't negate that; if parts of the DRP only talk about adult leaders, that's about adult leaders, but it doesn't change their statement that says "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership". If that's only for adults, why does it say "persons" and not "adults"? If it isn't for all membership, why doesn't it say "adult membership" or "leadership" instead of "membership"? If it's only for adult membership, why is it on the youth membership form? If you want to argue that the BSA isn't competent at creating membership forms, I'll agree to that, since they have yet to put their sexual orientation requirement on a membership form that I know of.

Wow, beavah, you have the gall to call ME dishonest with your ridiculous "analysis"? The membership form for a youth member clearly states that members have to subscribe to the precepts of the DRP. Unless you're trying to argue that youth members aren't "membership." Then, of course, you bring in the red herring of how people in the BSA ignore the BSA's own requirements. You can show that gays and atheists can join using that standard, since there people who ignore those rules, too.

BadenP, I actually argue my views. That's one reason I insist that people quote what I've actually written if they accuse me of e.g. lying, and why I often quote other people and point out exactly where I disagree or what I'm referring to. People who just complain about my posts using generalities instead of examples are just blowing smoke until they quote me. Pretenders like Beavah are just wasting space. You'll notice I answered Beavah's post and pointed out (yet again) where he was wrong (for example, he said the DRP only applies to adults, so I posted an URL to the BSA's own website and quoted part of the youth membership form where the youth clearly has to follow the DRP). This is a rather important detail, since this original thread was started because LIBob wondered if Taoists with widely differing beliefs, could join the BSA. There's a significant difference if youth need to subscribe to the DRP, or don't need to. So correcting Beavah on this point is relevant to this thread. But Beavah didn't even acknowledge his error. He'll likely bring up the same false information in the future, possibly misleading people on what the BSA's religious requirements really are. But accuracy is only important to people who want a genuine discussion. You don't need just to bait or insult people, but then you don't need this forum, either.

Hey OGE (or other moderator), isn't Beavah due for a suspension now that he's admitted posting only to bait me?

Beavah writes: Without some "higher something", how do yeh criticize torture when da state makes it legal? The same way I criticize anything else. How do you criticize torture if the state says that what god wants? Without some "higher something" how do yeh justify or encourage personal sacrifice to benefit others without any possibility of "getting something out of it"? I give blood platelets (hit 10 gallons a bit ago). I guess I must not actually do that. Without some "higher thingamajig", what causes you to reflect on and challenge your own actions? Thinking about your own actions is way better than following whatever some religion tells you to do. Even if religion were fake, we'd have to invent it just to teach good citizenship. So the only way to teach good citizenship is by making up an absolute moral dictator? I don't agree with that, that's the moral development level of a 3-year-old -- absolute rules, and if you disobey, you get punished. That's the lowest moral level. The DRP applies only to adult leaders Better tell the BSA that, they still have this on their youth form: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406A.pdf ... Excerpt from the Declaration of Religious Principle [DRP excerpt] Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership. ...

Barry writes, first quoting me (and line 2 is Beavah): >>Ah, you were only accusing me, personally, of dishonesty when you wrote: I have hope that some day his brain will get around to recognizing what clearly his heart knows

People constantly say I'm wrong, but hardly ever quote me and point out exactly what I said that was wrong. It's nearly always vague accusations with no details. Yawn.

Beavah writes: I don't believe all atheists know in their heart there's a deity. Ah, you were only accusing me, personally, of dishonesty when you wrote: I have hope that some day his brain will get around to recognizing what clearly his heart knows Well, I genuinely am an atheist, and I genuinely think you're contemptible.

Not intellectually; Beavah, like a lot of other believers, claims that atheists "know in their hearts" that god exists. I think believers are wrong, but I have enough respect for them in general to accept that their beliefs are sincere and not a facade.

All welcome except for the atheists*, Beavah; but you have no real respect for atheists. *and gays, of course.

Scoutfish writes: Any scout and scouter knows that avowed athiest cannot join. Big suprise their. Or even "there." And this means a Taoist WHO IS ALSO AN ATHEIST cannot join. Right? But in your original post to LIBob, you did not say that, Nope! You defined Taoists as athiesta nd said they would not be welcome under the DRP. No, I'm not quoting you, just recapping your arguement I didn't say that. You can't read, your spelling isn't good, and your typing appears to be degenerating.

Scoutfish babbles: You came in here trying to tell LIBob that Taoists would not be welcome Sorry, you STILL CANNOT READ. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome. Taoists WHO ARE ALSO ATHEISTS are not welcome.

LIBob writes: Merlyn: So let me get this straight. You are not a scout now, you are not a scouter now. You have never been a boy scout. You have not been a scout or scouter in any status for half a century. I was a cub scout about 43 years ago, otherwise correct. But - you have "googled up some stuff" tha tays "scouting in discriminatory." No, I've been following the BSA's well-established religious discrimination for quite a while, over a decade. - you have no idea if those "facts" are true or only as true as "donkeys cannot sleep in bath tubs" in Louisiana. Wrong. The BSA's religious discrimination is widely reported in the media, and on their own websites. - Since some of the BSA leadership is rom Texas, and some of teh BSA leadership are Mormons (and it is . . . well remotely possible that 80% of BSA leadership are tofu eating survivlaist hippies . . . then - you have decided based on your experiences a half century ago that you want to make it your hobby to convince scouters on this forum that scouting is a 100% discriminatory, 100% Texas/LDS organization. Wrong. It appears you can't read, either. For one thing, I've never mentioned Texas, Mormons, or the LDS in this thread at all. And a half century ago I was 3. Would you like to make up more "facts" or are you through? Here's my statement again: Taoists who are also atheists don't meet the BSA's religious requirements. You seemed to be concerned about Taoists joining the BSA. What I'm saying is that Taoists who are also atheists don't meet the BSA's religious requirements. when 100% of active scouters on this thread say "Taoists are welcome," and you use lot of savvy to imply but not say "Taoists are not welcome" Because nobody here (other than me) seems to be considering what happens to Taoists who are also atheists. Taoists who are also atheists are NOT welcome. Anyone who can read English should realize I'm not implying anything like "Taoists are not welcome"; if I wanted to state that Taoists aren't welcome, I'd write "Taoists aren't welcome." But I'm not. I'm writing "Taoists who are also atheists are NOT welcome."

Scoutfish lies: LIBob, I am not trying to imply you made any arguments about Taoists, just saying that Merlyn qouted parts of your original post, but trid to pass them off as something that BSA said instead of being part of your original post. What!? I did no such thing. You can't READ. Here's a statement: Taoists who are also atheists don't meet the BSA's religious requirements. I'll argue with anyone who disagrees with that statement. PS: No, I'm not ignoring it. But you are ignoring that LIBob SAID THAT, NOT BSA. I never SAID the BSA said that. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Scoutfish writes: Merlyn, I can read just fine. You do understand the concept of "read" don't you? Now, if you meant :"assume or use "ESP" then your arguement migh almost be valid...but you didn't. You said "Read" which I did. Nowhere...I repeat...NOWHERE did you say "Taoists who are athiests". Wrong. Look at the 4th message I posted: The rest of the DRP doesn't remove the requirement given in the first line. Why are you trying to dance around this, anyway? Don't you want the BSA to keep out Taoists who are atheists? I admit, I spelled "atheists" correctly, instead of "athiests" as you just wrote. But you did say : "And, of course, Taoists who are the sort that believe that since no god is above "The Way," then no entity in the Western sense of God can possibly exist can't join, period." In my first post, yes; notice the italics in the original, where I was quoting LIBob's description of one possible sort of Taoist belief. But let me point out two mistakes YOU stated. First off, You quoted LIBob again. LIBob said "No god is above "the way".." And if you quote more of it: "no god is above "The Way," then no entity in the Western sense of God can possibly exist." He did not that they did not believe in a god, just that he/she/it wasn't above "the way" . Looks to me like he was saying "no entity in the Western sense of God can possibly exist" in that last part. Or I can make it easier for you" "The way"is higher than god. But you're ignoring that bit about "no entity in the Western sense of God can possibly exist." Secondly, you keep refering to a westernsense of god as a standard of religion for the BSA that the DRP specificaly does not state. I'm not defining god in any sense; I'm just saying that atheists don't meet the BSA's membership standards. BSA officials certainly say that often enough.

LIBob writes: I'm not a hundred percent certain, but so far "facts on the ground" indicate Taoists are welcome. Only the ones who aren't atheists. Why is this hard to understand? BSA officials have stated a large number of times that members have to believe in a god. If you have a Taoist who believes in a god, fine; if not, they aren't welcome.