Merlyn_LeRoy

Why do some scouts have such a bee in their bonnet about atheists? My local sailing club insists that members can swim a minimum of 50m, this isn't bigoted against non-swimmers, it's the rules of the club.My local sailing club insists that members can swim a minimum of 50m, this isn't bigoted against non-swimmers, it's the rules of the club. Let me know when they exclude someone for not having the "right" religious views, and I'll call them bigoted at that time. Just like the BSA.

Beavah writes: Or change "Jew" to "Boating Enthusiast with no interest in airplanes" and "Restricted Club" to "Aviation Club for pilots". Same principles. Nope. There clearly are gays and atheists who want to join scouting. The BSA is keeping them out.

vol_scouter writes: I have seen considerable suffering from elective abortions and had I ever been in a situation provide advice to a woman considering an elective abortion, my obligation as a physician would be to present all information. The Obama administration wishes to make such a discussion illegal. I would REALLY like a cite for that.

Ed, I can't debate the topic if someone feels free to make up what I would say and falsely ascribe that to me.

Eamonn writes: My hope is that maybe before you decide for sure that you are really an Atheist, that you take the time to look at some of the other religions or beliefs that are out there. It might be that there is one that you find that suits you? Is this like finding a pair of pants that fit? By the way, why is it important to find a religion, any religion? Religions aren't intrinsically good or anything. It's also possible to join some religions while being an atheist. My bigger hope is that in time you will look back at the time you spent as a Lad in Scouts and look kindly on the good people who gave up their time with no reward to work with you and for you? Right up until he became a Jew and discovered he was in a Restricted club, and saw how having a repulsive and arbitrary policy like "anyone, as long as you aren't a Jew" completely undercuts it. Right now you remember the 3 foot flame, but if you take the time maybe you will see that these men and women were good people who cared about other people. Except Jews. If they cared about Jews, they wouldn't belong to a Restricted club. You will see that they weren't in any way bigots, just people who were trying to live by the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Sorry, they ARE bigots if they belong to a Restricted club. Oops, a typo. Change "Jew" to atheist and "a Restricted club" to "the Boy Scouts". Same principles.

skeptic writes: So, when the court said Gays could marry anyway in California, and the county clerk suddenly found themselves going against their beliefs, it was okay to tell them to give a license or be fired? How is that right? Can county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses to mixed-race couples, if that's against the clerk's religion? Should clerks have been permitted to do this after Loving v. Virginia?

Ed writes: Once the liar card is played nothing else matters! Name calling is not debating! And stating that someone is lying is not namecalling. It's needed in an honest debate if someone is not debating honestly.

vol_scouter writes: Whenever you start losing the argument as you usually do, you resort to name calling. What name calling? Beavah wrote 'Merlyn would say "sure they can, as long as they deny their faith."' Beavah is lying, because he is stating what I would say, as if he can read my mind. He can't. He's lying. That isn't namecalling just because some people use "liar" as a slur. I don't use the term as a slur. I use it when it's appropriate. Beavah lied about me, so I called him a liar. What argument am I supposedly losing, anyway?

Beavah, stop lying and pretending you know what I think.

There you go being thickheaded again, Ed. While I'm offended by skeptic's advocating that public schools ought to be able to run private clubs that exclude atheists, the unconstitutional part would be if public schools actually did so, and it would be unconstitutional NOT because it merely offended atheist students, but because of the school's unavoidable religious discrimination in running such a private club.

States can sue the federal government.

Most of those 10th amendment resolutions seem to be about unfunded federal mandates, not secession.

Ed, what's offensive is your thick-headedness in thinking being offended is the posited constitutional problem. It isn't.

skeptic writes: Actually, all I said was that perhaps rational reasoning and common sense would be able to win out over PC nonsense. The "PC nonsense" being public schools not violating the rights of atheist students. Even if the school was the actual sponsor, it would still NOT be required that the Atheist or whomever actually participate. Just like a school-run "no Jews" private club would not require the Jew or whomever actually participate. And, if it so bothered them that they were on school property, with some school support, then they could START their own group and meet there also. Just like Jews who were bothered by a public school running a "no Jews" private club could start their own club and meet there also. Of course it highly unlikely they would have enough interest to make it work; but that gives them an excuse to claim it is unfair. Just like the Jews. No matter what rationale someone puts forward, you just continue to regurgitate that they are infringing on Atheists and other fringe groups' rights somehow. For the simple reason that they are. They have the same exact rights, other than to FORCE the others to admit them and change their rules and precepts. They can develop their own programs and use the facilities just the same as the scouts. This does not mean public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion. So far though, that has not worked very well, as can be seen by the lack of success of the few who tried. Oh, that must be the BSA's fault too, somehow, or Christians, or whomever else they don't like and agree with. Yep, that's it. Public school charters haven't worked very well, have they? The BSA removed them all when the ACLU threatened to sue any public school that chartered a BSA unit that discriminated.

Yes. Do you ever listen to yourself? Here you are advocating that public schools ought to be able to operate private, "no atheists" clubs, ignoring the civil rights of atheists students and dismissing any concern for their rights as "PC", as if that makes trampling their rights acceptable: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5

Once again skeptic, you seem to think atheists have fewer rights than you. It doesn't work that way. You just can't take criticism.

To continue with what packsaddle said, if the standard is now 'coerce' or 'manipulate' or 'pressure', if you're referring to non-governmental entities (and you seem to be, skeptic, by your usual dismissing of others' rights by saying it's the "beliefs and feelings of the few", as if smaller groups have fewer civil rights), then what you're really complaining about are other people exercising their first amendment rights in order to criticize groups that you are sympathetic with. Which is just something you'll need to live with.

Narraticong writes: What I do care about is when people try to force religious denominations to change their belliefs to fit the desires of todays society. ... But don't tell me what I believe must change to fit your needs and desires. Who is trying to force religious denominations to change?

Ed, the only lawsuit in the cradle of liberty situation is the BSA's lawsuit against the city. So how's that an attack AGAINST the BSA?

The original agreement said either party can end the agreement by giving one year's notice. The city did so. They also decided they couldn't legally continue with the agreement because it violated their own laws. Like the similar lawsuit over free berths in Berkeley that were withdrawn, the court said that the BSA has a right to their membership requirements, but that doesn't mean cities are required to give the BSA special rates. Berkeley offered the berths to the BSA at the same rates as the general public, and that was good enough for the courts. Philly is offering the building at the same rate they'd lease it to anyone else.

Yes, of course, NOT giving special deals to a no-atheist, no-gays private organization is Stalinism. Why couldn't I see that? Here, let me help you up on that cross, Beavah.

vol_scouter, the city followed the contract; it could be ended at any time by giving one year's notice, and the city gave a year's notice. The BSA lawsuit doesn't mention any breach of contract. And the city can't deed the land "back" to the BSA because the BSA never owned it.

skeptic writes: Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist. Nowhere that I know of. But if government money is involved, I and a lot of other atheists aren't going to let that pass. vol_scouter writes: It is interesting to me that the left wishes to quote the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment but never mentions the next clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They are more than happy to prevent the free exercise of religion in order to make sure that the government can not be construed as aiding religious organizations in any way even thought that was not the intent of the clause. "Free exercise" does not mean government support. The Boy Scouts are not violating anyone's civil rights by having membership standards. True, as long as they really are a private organization. The Boy Scouts do not violate anyone the civil rights of anyone else by using public facilities unless no groups are allowed to use them including families The BSA can use the building for $200,000/year, same as anyone else.

Beavah writes: Didn't serve those families or kids well at all, eh? You mean by how "well" the BSA serves gay and atheist kids and their families?

Segregation "worked" for a long time too, but that's not a sufficient reason to justify governmental support.