Merlyn_LeRoy

Justice being blind, of course, is considered a GOOD thing. Justice is supposed to be blind to treat everyone equally, instead of allowing, say, nobles to commit acts that are crimes if done by commoners. People tend not to like being treated like inferiors.

My understanding is that this change took place in the 90s, after the Supreme Court case (Dale), in which the BSA successfully argued that it is a private club and can therefore discriminate with regard to membership. No, the BSA dishonestly kept rechartering public schools for five years after the Dale decision. They didn't stop until the ACLU threatened to start suing public schools that ran BSA units that excluded atheists: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2005/03/national_boy_scout_organizatio.shtml

How did this thread become about atheism? Topic drift. The linked news clipping was about L.A.'s gay community not wanting Learning for Life/Exploring to be the contractor-provider for the police & fire departments' youth programs. If the BSA was taking tax dollars to provide this service, then the gays probably have a valid point. The PD and FD operate with tax dollars, of course. While I find it hard to believe any school administrator would seek out extra duties, can anyone give me any specifics on which public school (and when) was the actual CO? There were roughly 10,000 in 1998. See figures here: http://www.scouter.com/archives/Scouts-L/200005/0617.asp Also see this thread, where I ask Fred Goodwin about his cub scout pack that was, at the time, chartered by a public school; you can email him and ask him about it: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=76435&p=2

CA_Scouter writes: Are you implying that if a public school has a club for theists and another club for atheists that its now ok for the public school to have a club for theists? Nope. You'll notice that White and Colored water fountains aren't legal, either. "Separate but equal" isn't equal. I wonder if having a club for atheists that requires a statement of atheism discriminates against theists. Of course. You'll notice public schools can't run those, either.

skeptic writes: Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges still does not work. Well, it's true that a public school having a Whites Only and a Colored water fountain allows everyone to drink, while a public school having a cub scout pack has a group for theists and absolutely nothing for atheists, so I assume having separate water fountains is even better in your view, right? Right?

Ed, I agree that school officials were wrong to sign any BSA charters, and that these school officials were either acting dishonestly or out of ignorance. I don't think the BSA can claim ignorance, so that leaves dishonest. Skeptic, are you OK with White and Colored water fountains? Everyone gets a drink, so people shouldn't kick up a fuss, right?

Ed writes: Merlyn, how do public schools "honestly" accept agreements that discriminate against anyone? They don't. The people agreeing to them are either dishonest or ignorant. So Ed, care to answer my question now? How does an "honest" organization end up with agreements that tell public schools to unlawfully discriminate against atheists?

Ed, how does an "honest" organization end up with agreements that tell public schools to unlawfully discriminate against atheists?

Ed, thanks for admitting that the BSA is a dishonest organization. Whether public school officials acted dishonestly, or merely out of ignorance doesn't alter the BSA's dishonestly in this matter. An honest organization wouldn't even offer such charters to public schools in the first place.

I don't know what you listen to, but I've always heard that jobs recover later. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98006,00.html [George Bush in 2003] There's an employment lag that generally accompanies a recovery. The economy gets going and after a while employment catches up.

BadenP writes: One more time for you twinkies who like to twist words, what I meant by that statement was that just about everyone in this forum has formed their own opinions as to what they think about Merlyn and his motives in this forum. As someone who reads words, you not only said that just about everyone has formed their opinion, but you also stated what everyone's supposedly was. And yes, I consider the BSA to be basically dishonest. No honest organization would charter discriminatory BSA units to public schools and expect these schools to break the law and practice religious discrimination. But that's precisely what the BSA did for decades.

Ed, both the LA police and fire departments have stated they will create their own programs; they just won't be done through the BSA's Explorer program. As someone (packsaddle?) pointed out in an earlier thread, even as an Explorer program, it's LA police & fire personnel operating the program.

Now who's protesting too much? Maybe you shouldn't use phrases like "I and everyone in this forum" if you don't want people to think you're trying to speak for everyone in this forum. Just a thought.

Boomerscout writes: Well, what's wrong with that? See the subject line? BadenP writes: Leroy, I never said I spoke for anyone else Yes, you did. You said "I and everyone in this forum view you as nothing more than an invasive nuisance that obviously has an axe to grind against scouting"

Say what you will Leroy but I and everyone in this forum You speak for everyone in this forum? Since when? And wouldn't that set include me? view you as nothing more than an invasive nuisance that obviously has an axe to grind against scouting. Well, I do have an axe to grind against scouting; it's a dishonest organization that discriminates against and denigrates atheists. And you STILL don't know what "troll" means.

Actually Merlyn, I was simply making a comment. No where did I say the decision to have the unit was right, based on the current law; And I haven't claimed you've said that. rather I said that the people who tried it simply took into account the "large majority" who felt it was a good fit, somehow not realizing that they were injuring someone egregiously by doing something good for their kids. With the implication that these groups of people ought to be able to do so, if 99% of them want to and the only issues would be that "PC stuff."

BadenP writes: Merlyn this whole topic further proves to me you are nothing but a glorified TROLL Wrong, but for you that's par. skeptic writes: You are now doing what you so often accuse others of doing. Find anything that can prove that I ever made such a statement or comment about schools and atheists. Here's a thread again talking about public schools chartering BSA units that exclude atheists: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5 Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids. Right there, you advocated that public schools ought to be able to run "no atheists" private clubs. While I may think the move does more harm than good, it is the legal ruling and therefore applicable. It was not applicable when some schools, with the backing of your favorite organization, were not given equal access to the use; and that too was brought to a legal ruling that must be met, even though some think it unfair for some reason. What are you talking about?? There is no "equal access" issue here. EVERY program that a public school conducts must be open to students regardless of the student's religious views; a public school chartering a pack or a troop is NOT open to all students regardless of the student's religious views, so the school can't do that. But, as has been noted numerous times; you have no desire to EVER admit an error, What errors are you talking about? or to accept that sometimes things take time to come to conclusions acceptable to all, I'll certainly admit to that; however, I will not wait for civil rights violations to, maybe, be cleared up someday by an organization that discriminates against atheists. I will force the issue, and end it as soon as possible. even the "terribly majority". I have no fewer rights that the majority.

skeptic writes: Meanwhile, if certain individuals or groups would simply let the internal, albeit, slow, process work its way out, you might finally see an acceptable solution. Skeptic, some people don't think that waiting forever for something that "might" happen is acceptable. I know that you thought it was unfair that public schools couldn't continue to charter cub scout packs and blatantly violate the civil rights of their own atheist students until the BSA got around to admitting atheists in another 40 or 50 years, but some of us address the current situation instead of things that "might" happen a few decades down the road. Los Angeles has laws on the books that prohibit the city from having contracts with organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion. That means the city police & fire departments can't use the BSA's programs, including programs from a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BSA. That's the situation as it is NOW. If the situation changes in the future, that change can be taken into consideration whenever that actually happens. But as it is NOW, the city can't have contracts with the BSA for their services.

The LA city attorney determined that LA can't use the BSA's Explorer program, because that violates the city's law forbidding contracts with organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion. An attorney for LFL says that LFL has already severed ties with the BSA (but as far as I know, LFL is still a subsidiary of the BSA). http://www.lgbtpov.com/2009/10/lapd-cut-ties-to-the-boy-scouts-%E2%80%93-with-some-red-flags

At last, an explanation that makes sense: http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/terminatrix.gif

Remember that "zero tolerance" means pretty much the same thing as "infinite intolerance."

BadenP, you don't even what a "troll" is. Notice scoutldr referred to "hit and run;" Ripmod has only ever posted 2 articles and has so far not returned. I think scoutldr is referring to Ripmod. Sorry if quoting your own words back at you causes you discomfort, but them's the breaks.

Merlyn I have NEVER condemned anyone for expressing their opinions Again, here's what you wrote to Ripmod: You are free to believe what you like but do not tell others what or how to believe, in this country we have something called religious freedom. He merely expressed his opinion; you implied he couldn't do that without infringing on people's religious freedom. That's ridiculous.

Actually Merlyn theology really means the study of gods and the systems of worship people have used over time, but if you had studied theology you would have known that too. BadenP, I already told you what definition I'm using. You can use your own. Ripmod is free to express his OPINIONS as is anyone else here but telling him not to try to shove it down others throats is because that is a violation of their religious freedom, that is not hypocrisy except maybe in your own mind. BadenP, he WAS expressing his opinions. You seem to have some secret definition of "shove it down others throats" which allows you to condemn someone for voicing their opinion in a way that you don't like. That's just too bad for you. And yes, I will call you hypocritical for doing so, because you are also "shoving it down others' throats". Yeah, YOU get to state your opinion, but you'll whine about how other people are violating religious freedom if they dare to state THEIR opinion...

BadenP, I'm using theology along the lines of this dictionary definition: "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity." The word theology means the study of god, which is not the same as the study of religions. Religious freedom allows you to believe what you want to or nothing at all, much like yourself, it is not a license to ramrod a belief down someones elses throat, that would be a theocracy which the USA is not. BadenP, here's what you wrote to Ripmod: Sorry ripmod but your theology is as faulty as your facts from the through brainwashing you have received from that heretical religious tradition you belong to. You are free to believe what you like but do not tell others what or how to believe, in this country we have something called religious freedom Ripmod was only exercising his religious freedom; your admonishment was basically trying to limit HIS religious freedom by telling him not to exercise it, which is hypocritical.