Merlyn_LeRoy

Pack212Scouter writes: I believe currently all charter organizations "in schools" are PTAs. Currently, yes. But before 2005, the BSA had no qualms issuing charters to public schools for packs & troops. I helped the ACLU of Illinois put a stop to that practice. In fact, public schools were the largest single chartering "group" for many years. Not the actions of an honest organization.

Quite true Ed, you don't have any facts, and that doesn't lessen the force of your argument one whit.

Some BSA councils have no problem applying for HUD grants to help inner-city kids by using their "no atheists allowed" scouting program, Rooster7. That's not a hypothetical example, either.

As usual, Ed is quick to criticize while providing zero details. Name me a private organization that, say, insists it's entitled to rent its HQ for $1/year from the government, Ed. Or how about one that applies for HUD grants to use for programs that exclude atheists, in direct violation of those HUD grants.

Pack212Scouter, I've been a scout, and I consider the current BSA to be completely dishonest (by, for example, chartering BSA units that exclude atheists to public schools for decades) and hardly a "friend to all scouts" when they exclude scouts that other countries accept with no problems. However, if the BSA is going to insist that it's a private, discriminatory organization, I'm going to insist that my government not support it, as private organizations support themselves.

I'm also an idealist, and I don't consider the BSA to be for the common good.

"Common sense" is what people use to approve of, say, government support of an organization that excludes atheists, while prohibiting support of an organization that excludes Jews, or Catholics. It's just government supported discrimination which is "OK" as long as the group being discriminated against is unpopular enough.

Pack212Scouter writes, quoting GernBlansten: "But what if it were a local jurisdiction that had a 99.9% majority that decided to deny blacks to marry whites. If the ACLU stepped in to stop that, would that be a travesty of justice?" Interesting example. First of all, I would not personally approve of it. Secondly, it is established that until and unless there is an actual ammendment to the federal constitution, marriage laws reside withing state rights. Wrong. Loving v. Virigina (1967) said that marriage was a civil right, and states could not prohibit interracial marriage. Thirdly, there is not any part of the constitution guaranteeing anything be not based on race, other than voting. It would be nearly impossible to meet the equal protection clause of the constitution. Justice Stewart, in his concurrence in Loving, also stated: I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court. All other equal rights guarantees are laws, not constitutional gurantees. Wrong. Religion, for one. (fixed italics)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Pack212Scouter writes: When reading "majority," you need to get the idea of 51/49 out of your head and realize that "majority" can mean anywhere from 50.00001% to 99.99999%, depending on where it is being used. Majority means "greater than 50%". It can refer to percentages like 50.00001% and 99.99999%, but what it means is "greater than 50%", unless it's part of a phrase like "two-thirds majority."

I didn't say the judicial branch changes laws; I was pointing out to Mr. Boyce that he can try to change the laws. And no, in our nation the majority does not always rule; the courts strike down laws that have been approved by a majority rather often.

Mr. Boyce writes: the ACLU board decides for itself what's right, then works the courts to get the courts to side with it. Which is true of every court fight in US history. That's how our adversarial legal model works. I'm not happy with the notion that a mere handful of individuals, no matter how political or esteemed they may be, deciding for the mass of the population what "rights" are. And, as made clear from what you wrote earlier, the ACLU doesn't do this; they argue their position in court, and judges and juries make decisions. You are free to bring your own lawsuits, argue your own view in court, and try to change laws you disagree with.

If the ACLU only stood up for rights with a long and settled history, they wouldn't have fought racial discrimination in the 1960s. Besides, who do you think helped make some civil rights history "long and settled" in the first place?

Pack212Scouter, the reason public money can't be used to run a scout troop is because the BSA insists on excluding atheists, and the government can't support religious discrimination.

still cost that council $40,000 to defend itself in a case that had no merit. Uh, no. In Glenn Goodwin v. Old Baldy Council, the Old Baldy Council clearly committed fraud, as their signed contract is here: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Old_Blady_Complaint.pdf Notice that this HUD grant paid to recruit for their Scoutreach program, which does not allow atheists. This is in violation of HUD requirements, which prohibit religious discrimination in any program financed by a Community Development Block Grant. The 9th circuit said the Federal False Claims act didn't apply in this case, which is why the case was lost, and which is why I've been ferreting out HUD grants before they're granted.

Well, you're like a conspiracy theorist then -- some people think Muslim congressman Keith Ellison isn't really the liberal Democrat that he's been for decades, because they "know" that all Muslims have to be against e.g. separation of church & state, gay rights, feminism, etc. So in order to explain Keith Ellison being in favor of these and other issues that they "know" Muslims can't be in favor of, they concoct elaborate conspiracy theories where Ellison really IS like they "know" every Muslim to be like, and he's been putting on an act for decades. It's pretty difficult to even argue with someone as deluded as that.

Rooster7 writes: Does love and hate exists? As human emotions, sure. Does good and evil? As human labels of opinion, sure. Is the essence of Merlyn a bag of bones, a few pints of blood, some flesh, and a collection of random thoughts? Not "random" thoughts, but I'll agree with the rest. If you want to add an unobserved, "spooky" spiritual component, I'll have to ask for some evidence, myself. I don't believe you. Why not? I don't believe that you cannot see your own soul...your own spirit. I don't appear to have one. I'm self-aware, but that doesn't entail magic. There's more there... and I can't help but believe you're pretending otherwise. No, I'm really not pretending. I accept that you believe what I consider complete nonsense, why don't you grant the same for me? Do you think every single atheist in the world is just pretending? That there are no genuine atheist materialists?

Rooster7 writes: Only you can make that happen. Which indicates it would be a product of my imagination, instead of something existing independently of me. Things that really exist don't need me to pre-brainwash myself into believing first.

Sorry skeptic, a sunset isn't the creator of the universe. As for "arid souls," I assume you don't believe in love because you don't believe in Cupid? Or are myths really not required for human emotions? And by your last remark, it sounds like you subscribe to the usual all-loving god who tortures people for all eternity for a mistaken opinion. Which only parses if you use psychotic definitions of ordinary human emotions like "loving". Packsaddle, like that old atheist Mark Twain said, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Just have your invisible friend show up sometime.

I'll have more information when I'm dead, but I doubt that any gods will put in appearances.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Einstein.

Beavah writes: Yah, Merlyn, yeh quest for an absolute truth in science too, eh? Science isn't at all about finding "absolute truth". But lots of scientists don't agree on what da absolute truth is, or even what we know at the moment. Because that isn't what science is about. "Absolute truth" is what some religions pretend to know. That's got nothing to do with science.

Explain to the Southern Baptists how they got everything wrong; I don't believe any of it, of course (the talking animals being something of a tip-off). My main point is, even people who think there IS an absolute morality can't demonstrate that their "absolute" morality is correct when it differs from someone else's "absolute" morality, so it all ends up being argued by humans in any case. It's really just the usual fallacy of argument from authority.

Well, I disagree, given that god has rules for the proper way to keep and hold slaves, just for one example. And I never see gods themselves issuing rules, only people claiming to speak for them, which is why basic societal rules like whether polygamy is OK have never been settled. On a more practical basis, since nobody can demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that their particular rules actually ARE "the" absolute rules, it all ends up being argued by people anyway.

Well eagledad, back in November you seemed to be arguing against relative morality as just being whoever has the biggest stick, while absolute, unchangable "religious" morality was the way to go...