Merlyn_LeRoy

Tahawk, argue with the supreme court about the 2nd amendment. And no, just because some states subsume feticide within laws against murder doesn't mean fetuses are legally the same as human beings. Corporations are considered persons under the law in some circumstances, but that doesn't make them human beings.

uz2bnowl writes: I bet the Palestinians hope this Atheist Jew thing takes off and expands. Why? The Jews that don't think there is a God, are they working hard to get the Jews out of Israel? After all they going be squatting. Your ignorance of Judaism and politics will probably keep you wondering about all sorts of odd things.

TAHAWK writes: Hold on to that thought for the few months remaining in your fantasy that "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the state." I haven't given my opinion at all. I've stated that the ACLU substantially agrees with supreme court rulings concerning the 2nd amendment, because that's what the ACLU says: www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html ..."The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia..." "Well, if you abort a woman's fetus without her consent, I'm sure you'll get charged with a crime." Homicide? Depends on the state. Some states have separate feticide laws, some subsume them into laws against manslaughter & murder.

You seem to be more focused on the nationality of being Jewish not the faith for your argument. No, I'm not talking about nationality, I'm talking about what most Jews say about who is Jewish. Jews can also be atheists. Like I said, their religion doesn't have to follow YOUR particular misconceptions of how religions can work. Some religions do not have theism as a requirement. I am sure there are folks who would say you are really not a Jew if you do not think there is a God. I'm sure there are; most Jews would not, from what I can tell. Why do you want to change the belief system of over a million kids(present) and nearly 100 years to fit your idea of what Scouting should be? I don't. What are you babbling about? You brought up a statement I made a while back that Jews can be atheists. That's a true statement. You seem surprised by it, and you also seem to be trying to deny it. Good luck with that. The BSA might be the largest youth tolerance school in the world. And I might be Marie of Rumania. It's the adults that are asking people to leave. These topics rarely come up with the scouts themselves. Except when they or their friends are among the people asked to leave. If the ACLU fought for second ammendment rights with as much zeal as taking the BSA to the woodshed they may have some street cred. They do, actually. It's just that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is pretty much in agreement with supreme court rulings, so there isn't much to do. Why doesn't the ACLU go after Uncle Sam for killing unborn babies by funding abortion. On what grounds? That seems to be an intrustion on ones rights, to be grabbed out of the womb seems to be worse than getting roughed up by the local cops. Well, if you abort a woman's fetus without her consent, I'm sure you'll get charged with a crime.

Hey Fred, you thought BSA rules should trump the US constitution, as you've never justified how your cub scout pack could exclude atheists when it was chartered by a public school. Better get that plank out of your eye first.

Your sarcasm doesn't do much about your ignorance of Judaism, and it's hardly unique among religions where belief in a god is not a requirement. Religions don't have to fit your preconceptions.

Most Jews don't consider belief in the Jewish god to be a requirement to be Jewish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Jew

Would this be Glenn Goodwin v. Old Baldy Council?

I agree, NeilLup, but it's the BSA that has decided some kids are to be rejected for not having acceptable religious views.

Mark, I've corresponded with Buddhists who have stated that some Buddhists are atheists and some are not. However, I can't tell from the BSA whether Buddhist atheists are officially permitted as members or not. In fact (and I've posted this link in Issue before), the chairman of the Buddhist Committee on Scouting, Victor Iwamura, wrote that in dealing with the BSA about Buddhism and scouting that "We are trying to influence the powers that be here but it is a difficult struggle," which suggests some problems. That link is at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scouting.issues/msg/15ed2e62c872ccad

Ed, you can't back up your claim. I've never said first amendment rights are subject to my whims.

I think it's pretty clear that when the BSA refers to agnostic I think it's clear as mud. Buddhists are OK, but not atheists; what about atheist Buddhists? A rock or a stream is an acceptable god, but I'm pretty sure most atheists and agnostics agree that such things exist.

I think the important question is "what does the BSA mean when their legal website says atheists and agnostics can't be members?" It doesn't really matter what anyone here means by the terms, as far as BSA membership goes, unless they are put in the position of enforcing their no atheists/agnostics policy. But that kind of goes along with having religious requirements for membership; you really ought to have clear requirements, so people can figure out if someone meets them or not.

Well Gunny, if we're going to say what happens in practice in the BSA, you can say that agnostics, atheists, and gays can join, because you can find BSA units that ignore those policies. I've also discussed (at least in rec.scouting.issues, not sure about scouter.com) on what the BSA policy means with regard to someone whose beliefs my be in flux; can they stay in the BSA if they're an atheist for a day? A week? A year? Or should they quit & re-enroll within the same hour? I haven't seen any definitive answers on how long, or how "doubtful" members can be. I disagree that "atheists are very different than agnostics;" agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism/theism. You can be atheist and agnostic, or a theist and agnostic. Gnostic/agnostic refers to a person's opinion on what sorts of knowledge of god(s) is possible, while theist/atheist refers to whether a person believes god(s) exist. A person can believe in god(s) (or not), yet believe that humans can't have any real knowledge of god(s). But lots of people use 'agnostic' to mean 'not 100% sure on whether god(s) exist or not,' which would probably label the majority of Americans as agnostic. I don't consider that usage to be very accurate or useful.

As usual, Ed offers no examples to back up his claims.

As usual, Ed offers no examples of his claims.

Gunny, the BSA legal website says atheists AND agnostics can't join the BSA.

skeptic writes: Rights are only viable when they do not infringe on those of others. When they do, they are license. Neither form should be allowed if itcannot be done equibly. Again, the intent, to stop any form of bullying, is commendible; but since it has become predominently focussed on one specific group, and is spear-headed by non-student advocates, it is no longer something that should occur. Sorry, first amendment rights aren't subject to your whims on what's proper or not. A day of silence doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Students are perfectly free to advocate political positions, even narrow ones, even one you may disapprove of. By looking the other way and tacitly approving an activity, the school, a symbol of authority, becomes implicit in the activity. So you'd also outlaw "see you at the pole" meetups, and the fellowship of christian athletes? And, when some educators express their point of view during this event, they are over stepping their place, as this is a "public school". They do not have the right to directly or indirectly support certain PC points of view, since, as you have noted more than once, they are authority figures. Are you saying teachers can't come out in favor of "PC" political positions like being against racism? My point is on the table; but I realize that you will evade it, or trivialize it, because only your perspective is important or viable. No, I don't evade it. I pointed out that none of the URLs you posted were examples of public schools running a day of silence as part of the school day. I pointed out that students have first amendment rights to voice their opinions, either for or against homosexuality, yet you want to limit the rights of students who have political opinions you dislike. I, on the other hand, defend the first amendment rights of ALL students, regardless of their political opinions.

skeptic writes: Simply allowing the groups to sponsor the event on campus is tacit approval of the intent. Wrong; students and student-run groups have first amendment rights. There are all kinds of such groups, including ones for praying, like 'see you at the pole' groups. Schools don't make them part of the official school day, either, and they can't. Allowing special assemblies requires school officials to approve the activity. That depends; if school facilities are available for student groups to use, student groups can use them to exercise their first amendment rights. The real point is not that encouraging less bullying and ill treatment of students for any reason isn't a good thing; but the methods and focus are not consistent with that. They specifically are focussed on a specific group of individuals; and non-school advocates are directly involved. What's the point of your real point? Students have first amendment rights, including political speech and actions. They can even be part of national organizations. Merlyn; it is interesting that you admit it appears some students rights were violated. Yet, you are still unwilling to admit it is directly related to the approval, direct, or indirectly, by school officials. No, it isn't related. Students have first amendment rights to say what they like about homosexuality, whether it's positive or negative. School administrators can't punish either one. Yet you seem to want to suppress students speaking out in support of gay students, but you're very defensive of those criticizing homosexuality. The door swings both ways. That means gay-straight alliances can hold a day of silence, right?

Doesn't look that way looking at the other links to archived stories, Ed. They say the gay-straight alliance club sponsored it.

Your first link doesn't have any official school connections, just students and public figures promoting the day of silence. Same with your second link; it says a gay-straight alliance sponsored it. Your third link even explicitly says that school administrators are NOT involved in sponsoring the day of silence. Your forth link doesn't indicate any official school sponsorship. Your fifth link says the day of silence is sponsored by GLSEN, not the school. School officials do appear to have violated students' first amendment rights, but they didn't conduct the day of silence. So none of your examples are of a public school conducting the day of silence as part of the official school day.

Which public school(s) had a day of silence as part of the official school day, skeptic?

Rooster7 writes: What powers do you possess that enables you to decipher the unspoken motives of others? Unspoken? Lots of legislators came right out and said so. Regardless, its the impact/outcome on the collective group that should drive the Constitutionality of such matters, not the motivation of specific individuals or subgroups. I don't think constitutionality should be based on situational ethics. For example, if I believe I have a religious right to procreate, the federal government shouldnt hinder my access to public health care. They should not be questioning my motives or how I came to the door of a public clinic. Its my business, not theirs. Sounds reasonable to me; hope you also defend e.g. the rights of minors to not procreate and get an abortion without having their motives questioned or how they came to a public clinic. By your reasoning, if one can prove that an individual gains a religious benefit by some government sponsored event, facility, practice, etc., then the government has a duty to cease its participation in such an event, facility, practice, etc. That's not the reasoning I'm using at all. I'm saying the government should be neutral. So if one person can claim that lunch is their religious right then by your reasoning, the public schools should stop serving lunch. No, by my reasoning, the government has to have a legitimate, nonreligious reason to serve lunch. Fortunately, they do. However, people who claim they have a religious right to, say, a kosher lunch do not obligate schools to serve only kosher lunches. Merlyn adds: And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that? Because as a practical matter, interrupting the school day multiple times for moments of silence would be counterproductive to the collective group. Why is one interruption the magic number that's permitted? On the other hand, one can argue that starting the day on a moment silence will allow/encourage the collective group (regardless of individual motives or desires to pray, meditate, or whatever else one can do during a moment of silence) to start the day more focused and committed. But around lunchtime is too much? Not beneficial? Looks completely arbitrary to me.

Looks like I'm late to the party...but I usually just read Issues & Politics... Hey Avery, I'm a lifelong atheist who was a Cub Scout for a year or so about 40 years ago. The BSA, officially, does not allow atheists to be members (though they seem ignorant enough of the existence of non-theistic religions to be incoherent). What your local troop and/or council does is a crap shoot, as some of them ignore the atheist and/or gay policies as well as they can. Assuming your troop is in or around Fort Collins, most of them appear to be chartered to churches, but if your troop is one of the handful chartered to a Boys & Girls Club, it's very likely they'd ignore the policies. But if you want an "out" from the scouts to justify it to your parents, just show them http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a volunteer Scout leader or member? A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it addresses the issue of duty to God before duty to country, others, and self. If you do decide to stay in the scouts, you might want to check out www.scoutingforall.org, which is an organization I'm part of that opposes the BSA's discriminatory membership policies.

Gold Winger asks: Does the newsletter state that this person is a man? Who claimed he was? Maybe he's a big deer. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)