Merlyn_LeRoy

Their examples of other organizations that limit membership or services to particular groups is pretty poor. One is a home for seniors (the government can discriminate on the basis of age; it can't on the basis of religion). One looks like a bogus example (Women for Greater Philadelphia says their membership is open to anyone, and their newsletter welcomes a new member "Carl Nittinger"). The Colonial Dames of America restricts their membership to women who are descendants of people who held leadership positions in the original 13 colonies, but the only Philadelphia property they list is a national historic landmark building that's a museum which is open to the public, so I don't see any problem with a free lease (and I'd bet that lease would end if the CD of A decided to use the building for their HQ and stopped allowing the public to tour it as a museum). I couldn't find any information about the church in Pennypacker Park. I don't know about building rental rates, but the BSA admits that they spend $60,000 a year on maintenance, so $200,000 a year for rent doesn't sound out of line. In any case, it's irrelevant. If the city can't lease it at that rate and come up with a lower rate, the BSA will be able to lease it at the lower rate just like any other potential tenant.

I don't think they have a chance of winning; they're saying that the city, by not giving them subsidized rent, is infringing on their first amendment rights: http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Cradle_of_Liberty_v_Philadelphia.pdf

I doubt that; the states were just deciding when they would have their primaries, but the political parties can have their own (at their own expense). There was some talk of doing that, but I don't think they could get the Clinton camp, the Obama camp, and the DNC to come to an agreement on how to re-run those states. I think there was some grumbling on whether the party affiliation of the MI/FL houses had anything to do with it, but I think there were a nontrivial number of Democrats in those states who wanted to move their state dates. Of course, this all harkens back to states moving their primaries ahead so their voters have some influence on who gets nominated.

OGE, my point was that the MI/FL situation is not just due to the Democratic rules, but to the legislatures of these states that voted to change the dates. I don't think the DNC realized what could happen when they made the rule. Remember (well, from history class) when the VP was whoever came in second for president? The president's VP was his chief political opponent. I guess it looked good on paper.

Pat Paulsen's dead; I suppose he could still run for Chicago mayor, though. OGE, the MI/FL primary was a combination of the Democratic party rules not to count primary results in states that try to leapfrog ahead of IA/NH, and the legislatures of MI/FL, which is how they decided what date to have primaries (at least state-run, state-financed ones). The Republicans don't have such a rule, and I don't think it would make a difference in McCain's nomination given their winner-take-all delegate assignment. As for superdelegates, political parties aren't government entities and they could, if they wanted to, have an unelected Emperor appoint the party nominee. Both parties now have the presidential candidate select the VP candidate, but decades ago the VP was another vote. And the cradle of liberty council DID try to announce that they weren't going to follow BSA policy to try and keep UW allocations, and the national BSA threatened to kick them all out and appoint a new board, so they probably won't try that to keep their HQ.

What are you talking about, Ed? You're the one who brought up the girl scouts, so I guess you're talking to yourself.

My URL is correct, but the posting software didn't make it into a proper link because it stopped at the "+". And I think everyone here realizes that the girl scouts discriminate on the basis of sex and age, did you just hear about it?

Did you read the links?

Not even all members of the BSA are in favor: http://www.numismaticnews.net/currency/Should+The+Boy+Scouts+Of+America+Have+A+Centennial+Commemorative.aspx Generally I would be quite in favor of a commemorative coin for the centennial of the BSA - after all, I have been a member for 40 years! As a youth I earned the Eagle Scout Award, as an adult I served the community as a troop scoutmaster for 14 years. I have been honored by the Queens Council with the Silver Beaver Award. In 2002 I spearheaded a committee that re-wrote the Coin Collecting Merit Badge booklet and since 1981 I have organized the American Numismatic Association's participation with a Coin Collecting Merit Badge booth on the Merit Badge Midway at the National Scout Jamborees (seven of them and counting!). So, why would I be against a Scouting Centennial coin? Well, I am against the scouting centennial coin program because the BSA has poised itself as a "private membership organization" and discriminates in its membership; and therefore I do not think that government funds should be going to such a group. Also, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is against it based on the BSA's religious discrimination: http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=8

Pete Stark is an atheist. Of course, some here think the BSA should be supported even as they denigrate gays and atheists. Since they're all Democrats, good luck getting a Republican elected against an incumbent this election year. And as I recall, a gay man sued to stay IN the BSA; doesn't sound like they used to "hate the BSA with a passion."

If geocentrists started arguing that their "theories" should be taught in astronomy class alongside heliocentric theory (as, after all, heliocentrism is "only a theory") and made incorrect statements like "Mercury has not been observed to orbit the sun", then they'd get the same reception.

Eagledad writes: I work in a research science field and what we would translate you to say is that there is absolutly nothing anyone can say that you will allow make you feel insecure. I don't CARE if you work in a research science field; you don't know that "theory" is as good as it gets, because you used it in the typical science-ignorant whine that evolution "is only a theory." Of COURSE it's a theory. It's a very well-tested and fruitful theory. If you whine about evolution being "only a theory," do you similarly object to teaching about gravity, electromagnetism, or the atomic theory of matter? They're only theories too. You also made a completely inaccurate statement, that "No evidence of species evolving into a different species" has been found when speciation has been observed. Gravity is only a theory, so it shouldn't be taught exclusively in schools without equal time for "intelligent falling": http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

However, we are hominids, of the family Hominidae and apes are not, they are of Pongidae. Bit of a difference. Not for some years now. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans got moved from Pongidae into Hominidae.

Eagledad writes: Not the evolution that is so controversial. No evidence of species evolving into a different species Speciation has also been observed, also both in the wild and in the lab. (fish into cat, ape into man, etc.) has been found or proven. Humans ARE apes, and speciation has been found. Its still just theory. "Theory" is as good as it gets in science, nothing is ever proved. Theory of gravity, theory of electromagnetism, etc.

No Ed, evolution has been observed, both in the wild and in the lab. Creationism and I.D. haven't, but they aren't scientific theories anyway.

Beavah, you're perfectly welcome to read goat entrails or whatever other bizarre religious methods you like to try and make up answers. I'll only note that evolution is a branch of science that gets taught in science class, whereas creationism and intelligent design are not science and not taught in science class. (fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Hey Gold Winger, science is the only "religion" that works even if you don't believe in it. I doubt that you're posting messages in this forum using the power of prayer.

That is why I know what we read here on the forum is not a reflection of the general atheist community. You can't legitimately conclude that your experiences with a few atheists applies to most atheists; that's just anecdotal evidence. You'd need a decently conducted survey to determine the attitude of the "general atheist community." It sounds like the kids involved were willing to make a promise to do their 'duty to god,' so either they weren't atheists or they were and didn't care. Now, if one of them was excluded, you might get a reaction. The units were asked to stop meeting and recruiting in public schools. If other outside groups can meet in the school, they can't keep scout groups out, and the same with recruiting if other outside groups can recruit. I don't think even "asking" would be proper if other groups are allowed in.

Eagledad writes: I can personally name names of boys from atheist families that would not have had the opportunity to participate in scouts if they weren't in schools at the time. How did boys from atheist families have the opportunity to participate in scouts? Were the boys themselves atheists, or just their families? And by "in the schools," do you mean school-chartered?

The Asatru troop was Troop 1239 in the Great Salt Lake council, chartered by the Eagles Kindred Asatru Alliance. It apparently existed from at least 1999 but doesn't seem to have been around in 2005. The original web page about their chartering no longer exists, but the Wayback machine has a copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20050409211511/eagle.webpipe.net/scouts.htm The website eagle.webpipe.net still exists, so eagle (at) webpipe.net might be able to tell you more. It goes back to at least 1999 because this message from early 2000 references it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeathenParenting/message/19 My list of Utah troops from 2005 doesn't show it, though.

Tahawk writes: You assert that certain things are true, or will be true - things contrary to quoted, very express BSA policy on the subject of what "Duty to God" and "reverent" require. Things that are stated quite plainly on the bsalegal.org. And the BSA gets to define what "Duty to God" and "reverent" requires as far as the BSA is concerned. And if only MOST Buddhists are atheists, the presence of Buddhists in the BSA doesn't show that atheists can be in the BSA.

Tahawk writes: No, don't quote the lawyers on "atheists," That's theory, we don't know what THEY meant by "atheist," That's true of ANYONE using the term, though. Sorry, I'll stick with what the BSA says on their own website, and what they testify to in court under oath. Show us a Buddhist -- or Jain or non-theist Hindu -- kicked out by BSA or told he or she is going out because he or she is a non-theist - an atheist Show us one known to be an atheist to BSA national who has not been kicked out, or told he or she will not be kicked out. Are you an atheist and a Buddhist? You could be a test case if you are. I don't know if the national BSA has ever had to address this situation directly. On my part, I have already pointed history. You just keep arguing, implicitly and expliciitly, that BSA for 88 years, and its religious affairs directors, MUST NOT know what it all means; like BSA thinks Buddhists are sorta exotic Baptists (Both begin in "B."). "Does not!" isn't much of a comeback. Brian. That hasn't BEEN my comeback. I keep showing instances of atheists getting kicked out, and official BSA statements that atheists can't be members, and you keep ignoring them. "Now you aren't even making sense. "People of the book" is typically a Muslim term referring to Christians and Jews, so I'll suppose you're asking if it would be better if "BSA actually" restricted membership to followers of Abrahamic religions." And yet, I seem to have communcated. You got it in one. AND YOUR ANSWER IS? The way your question is phrased made it sound like you thought I was arguing that only members of Abrahamic religions can be members; in any case, I haven't been arguing that. By the way, no, I don't think it would be better. But it wouldn't surprise me very much. Clearly the BSA kicks out SOME atheists and allows in those who acknowledge a higher power. Clearly this is a new use of the word "clearly." I don't think the BSA's policies are terribly clear at all. Darrell Lambert said I think the only higher power than myself is the power of all of us combined," which is a belief in a higher power (humanity), yet he was kicked out. "Are there any who BSA national knows to be atheists, yet allows them to keep their memberships? I'd genuinely like to know, as that would be significant." One knows from the unchallenged proof presented. You have to assume facts not in evidence to conclude they don't understand what they have been doing for 88 years or understadbn the words they have posted on the BSA website. I'll take that as a "No."

Tahawk writes: to the extent that you read "atheist" to mean non-theistic religions like Buddhism. But I'm not doing that at all. The only thing I'm saying is that official BSA policy at national is to kick out atheists. If you're a Buddhist and an atheist, BSA national will kick you out for being an atheist. If you're Jewish and an atheist, they'll kick you out for being an atheist. But, Brian, you continue to refuse to discuss what the BSA says on tis site. Which site? bsalegal.org is as much a BSA site as scouting.org You also continue to refuse to address the presence of Buddhists in Scouting for far longer than yuo have been alive. Not at all. Yes, Buddhists have been in scouting a long time. This does not somehow negate the BSA's official policy that atheists can't be members. Those are two different statements. Is making your point more inportant than the actual conduct of the organization that you dislike so strongly. The "actual conduct" of the organization is to refuse membership to atheists. They refused the Randall twins and went to court. They testified in the Powell case that atheists couldn't join. When David Wise testfied in the Welsh case and mentioned that he, too, was an atheist, HE was kicked out. Brad Seabourn was kicked out for being an atheist. Would it be better, somehow, if BSA actually did exclude everyone except "People of the Book"? Now you aren't even making sense. "People of the book" is typically a Muslim term referring to Christians and Jews, so I'll suppose you're asking if it would be better if "BSA actually" restricted membership to followers of Abrahamic religions. But that doesn't resemble at all what I've been saying. I've been saying that the BSA kicks out atheists. There are plenty of people who are NOT "people of the book" and who are NOT atheists, so your question doesn't relate to anything I've been saying. I thought the issue between us was whether BSA excludes those who follow non-theistic religions. That isn't what I thought the issue was. I thought the issue was whether official BSA policy is to refuse membership to atheists. Please note it's possible to be a member of a religion and be an atheist. Being a member of a religion does not erase the possibility of being an atheists. ALSO note that it's possible to be a member of a religion that does not require belief in a god, yet some members of that religion CAN believe in gods. And how about Jains and expressly non-theist Hundus? Are there any who BSA national knows to be atheists, yet allows them to keep their memberships? I'd genuinely like to know, as that would be significant. Gotta watch out for those those polytheists in Scouting too. If the BSA decides to interpret their DRP to exclude polytheists (which they could, of course), then yes.

"I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out." -- Judge Harry Stone, Night Court

Gunny2862, yes, examining goat entrails could tell you some things about the goat; probably not any useful information about the future, though. So if religion works for some folks in answering the questions they're asking why does the Scientific crowd have such a backlash against them unless it is to win them over to their worldview/religion? Hey, some people use Magic 8-Balls for answers. It's easy getting answers. Radio Shack has answers. If all you want are answers, any answer will do. I prefer to use the scientific method to: 1) find the best answer (or answers) that explains current observations; 2) make predictions, which hopefully are accurate (if not, that's a strike against it as "best answer") 3) refine the current crop of best answers to get answers that are more accurate and/or more complete Ed, I don't buy into praying just like you don't buy into ESP. My examples, as I wrote and as you apparently didn't read, are examples of non-scientific methods that claim to reveal information. And I'd put all religious scriptures in that category.