moosetracker

Well 2 answered packsaddle said continue on if you see this as fun.. qwazse might have been a vote to stop, but if it was it was kindof cryptic because all it said was I find other threads going on more interesting.. Here is you, but you didn't answer yes or no.. JoeBob, NJCubScouter, MattR, FredR, Pint.. And of course merlyn all have commented, any of them could have voted.. And I don't know if there are any other spectators.. I think a 24 hour timeframe to answer was decent.. And if Merlyn seems to be taking an uncustomary long time to answer.. So it may already be over, with me having the last word. Oh yeah and someone further up said they didn't see what Merlyn & I was argueing over.. Merlyn may have some other idea.. This is my take on it, form a timeline perspective.. 1) Started off just me stating my position relative to acceptance of atheists in BSA.. 2) Then turned into trying to reason with Merlyn.. 3) Then turned into trying to see if I could get Merlyn to have an open discussion to let me know why he thinks there is no reason for BSA to fear the actions of atheists bent on a negative campaign for religion.. (I was truly hoping to find, an organization that worked for positive action that most atheists sided with, but the radical fringe was currently out voicing their message.. 4) That being proven not to be the case, it has been to point out to Merlyn my viewpoint of positive activism to improve conditions of your group vs negative activism, and try to see if I could figure out from him why he thinks his group thinks they have positive activism similar to the civil rights movements of both the blacks & the homosexuals & I guess we could also add the undocumented immigrants as they seem to be slowly winning national support. Might not be able to agree, but it would be nice to understand where their head is at.

I guess I can restart, seeing I didn’t get 3 people telling me to hang it up.. Merlin: “Now all you need to do, moosetracker, is show that the peaceful black liberation activists (who filed lawsuits), and the peaceful gay rights activists (who filed lawsuits), are different from the peaceful atheist activists who file lawsuits. Where's the atheist equivalent of the black panthers? So basically the group that was totally ineffective.. Moosetracker, I got about 10,000 public schools to drop BSA charters and end illegal discrimination against atheist students. I don't call that ineffective.†Ok let’s start with the 10,000 public schools you got to drop BSA.. I would say that someone who burns down a building might also argue they were effective at what they did.. The real determination is to figure out if this brought you closer to what your end game, or not.. Maybe it did, Maybe it didn’t because I get conflicting signals as to what your end game really is.. And so do others.. If the homosexuals fighting for same sex marriage had done similar.. They would first had to fight to try to ban all the Federal and State benefits that come with marriage, joint tax returns, not paying death taxes when your spouse dies, continuing benefits from the military after you military spouse dies etc. etc. etc.. Wipe all these benefits out of being benefits of a married couple.. I mean to gain equality for their group then if they can’t have them no one can.. Seems legitimate, after all they are being denied the right to marry because of the thought that they were sinners and marriage was a holy institution.. Then after they had wiped all states & Federal benefits from marriage, thus by pretty much making it more of a religious ceremony, because accept for the religious blessing you didn’t get anything else out of it.. They demanded to be allowed the right to enter into a same-sex marriage union.. Or for the blacks to do something similar.. (This is a little further stretch, as they weren’t fighting directly against church beliefs.. But, they would have to do something to force most of the whites to lose their jobs or get paid pittance for their work, so that things were on a more equal playing field for whites and blacks.. Then demand higher pay.. Or perhaps burn down the theater that didn’t allow them entrance, if they could not enter the theater, then no one could.. Equality for all.. Then ask for the theater to now allow blacks into the theater in desegregated seating.. So if the homosexuals removed the government benefits from a marriage, do you really think they would have won the majority of the population over to their ultimate goal which was to legalize SS-marriage? I doubt it.. They would only have won the battle not the war.. If blacks were successful in making it hard for anyone to earn a decent wage, or in burning down the theater.. Do you really think they would have been successful in the end game of desegregation and better job opportunities where they could earn a decent wage? Again I don’t think so.. You simply don’t win over the nation to agree with your cause by acts that are not only hostile in nature, but also makes it harder for you to achieve your goal.. So, if your ultimate goal was to have BSA open membership to atheists, why do you think getting rid of the schools (which would have been very accepting to atheists had the rules been changed) and moving them into being more dependent on Religious charters was a great way to move you closer to the ultimate goal.. I know it was the easier victory for you to achieve, but it made your ability to win the war that much more out of reach.. Now for things like placing insulting signs to church goers on lawns across the street, or on billboards right next to the church.. Or in the middle of a Christmas display on the lawn.. Sure you can do it, Sure free speech and all that.. But, what does it do to get you closer to your ultimate goal? If you had used your piece of lawn in the middle of the Christmas scenes to do some positive promotion for your group and let the community know you might not believe in religion, but here is what you do believe in and list your positives, and that though you did not believe in religion you could be a good neighbor.. Then I would have said it was a good PR campaign.. Bravo for you.. But basically, it is just time spent to make sure that people get negative impressions of your group, and when the religious play victim over your actions, people have some nice memories of signage you have done and do not feel the religious are making things up.. So do you really think that if the blacks put up a billboard next to a whites only school reading “Death to whitey†this would have gotten the schools desegregated faster?? Suing a restaurant over a discount for bringing in a church bulletin on Sunday.. First off it wasn't discrimination of atheists only, people who don't know what they believe but don't classify themselves as atheists, stay at home Catholics, people who didn't get out of bed early enough, people who went to church but left there bulletin in the pew.. They all don't get the discount.. And as stated discounts have been for age, gender also at bars where they have women's night.. But anyway, aside from all that.. If you win, what do you win?.. Does your meal that cost you $15 become cheaper.. NO.. Actually you helped the restaurant, free publicity for them and they got lots of church goers now stopping in for brunch or lunch after church.. So you didn't hurt them any.. Church goers maybe, but that again would be a battle won, but gotten you further from winning the war.. And really they probably wont care much you put the church goers in contact with a restaurant that welcomes their business. So what is your ultimate goal.. I have definitely heard to get into the BSA, and I also heard to have people except you as moral upright citizens and neighbors, and to separate church & state.. Ok, you might have the separate church & state down to a working routine.. You won’t win over national support for it, but you can make that happen without it, and really for me personally, never took notice of the statues, and if you ever go the money changed, it probably wouldn’t effect me, I don’t study it under a microscope anyway.. But, it just doesn’t make you well liked.. So, for the other goals.. Well… flunk, flunk, big fat “Fâ€Â.. In order to win national support, you got to get people to like you and see you as not doing anything to deserve the animosity you receive..

That's kindof confusing, seeing that at the end of the school year your suppose to advance them up a rank, and then they are to start working on earning the rank for the new rank (and if they didn't complete it stop earning rank for the for the old rank unless they choose not to advance then they can't work on the new rank just the old rank).. So if they are still they are a tiger & wolf at the same time that makes them a tilf, or woger, or wolf/bear they would be woar or belf etc... Hmm.. confusing..

Sorry guys.. I know I will not convince Merlyn, nor he I.. But, I have been enjoying the conversation with Merlyn, first to see if I could get him out of simply throwing insults with no substance, and open up to a real discussion, and then since Tuesday, I have been enjoying a true discussion of viewpoints with him.. Oh, it's one that revolves around and around and gets no one convinced of any body else's opinion, like homosexuals and politics.. But, hey we have had a lot of those.. And the board is still slow about any other topics, as it tries to recover from being difficult to use for about 3 or 4 months. I felt like my answer to him would have again be revolving around what has been said, but summed up and with an attempt to say it a little differently hoping to see if I could get something that has yet to take hold, take hold if said differently.. But, If you guys want us to stop.. I will not comment, at this time and wait until at least tomorrow at this time.. If I get three votes that tell me to end it now, before that time period, then I will.. If not I will continue.. Then just twiddle my thumbs in hopes something of interest will materialize in the near future.. Sorry Merlyn.. Perhaps we will pick this up tomorrow.. Perhaps not.

I do know there were these pockets of extremists, you can't control everybody's actions, I have mentioned the black panthers, earlier in the thread.. And the opposing side loved to highlight them to show that the other side was wrong.. Thing was, the larger group that was peaceful was accepted by most of the group to be their official leader and spokesperson, and they would denounce this actions as being the right way to go, and be louder in there insistence that the group push for change in peaceful manner.. It was the louder voice.. In the end their cause was won by the nation respecting the actions of those who stood up for their rights in a respectful manner, and those who fought in a hostile manner had no impact on changing the attitude of the nation.. The cause was not won because of their actions, it was won in spite of their actions. Your group just has the rabble rousers.. So basically the group that was totally ineffective..

My feeling exactly about you Merlyn, you just can't get the difference of how the blacks worked their civil rights movement and the Homosexuals worked their civil rights movement which allowed them to stand their ground, keep their pride and dignity, get their message across LOUDLY.. And turn the nation in the direction of supporting their cause, due to the amount of dignity, and Respect that they conducted their movement despite the horrible treatment that they received.. Your movement, is just not going in the right direction.. From what I can see, if all atheists in this movement are exactly like you, then I believe you guys really don't care.. Your just having fun with you low level harassment at the enemy.. Martin Luther King's dream was not that his people respond to the brutality in kind, but rise above it.. The nation stood up and took notice of how worthy they were, and how wrong the treatment they received was.. It was not about taking a baseball bat to the whites who took one to you, or burning the home of those who burned down yours.. It wasn't a movement of "They did it to us, so we have the right to do the same.. The homosexuals figured out the formula and were able to work the same magic.. Two wrongs don't make a right.. And therefore, until your group figures out the right formula, (that if you guys are even interested) the nation will simply not take up the issue for either side, just let you fight like cats and dogs.. Unfortunately BSA is already living with the cat, so it would be difficult to incorporate the dog in the same house.. Perhaps if we had the dog living with us, then it would be the cat we would need to be skeptical about adding to the mix. Pint.. Thanks for the info.. But it seems you are saying that the oath is the oath with the God in it.. But it sounds like as of June they now have two oaths one with and one without.. Is that not true?.. Are adults as of the new ruling still barred and the youth only get to say the different oath? If that's the case, you are starting off with your atheist mix as are doing with our homosexual mix..

The award is the tasks, it doesn't mean any more.. What you hope, is that the time spent doing the award was spent working with a good group of people both adult leaders and peers that help formulate the values you are hoping he receives at the end of the journey.. But some troop do not give this added bonus, they just go through the tasks like a shopping list, and there are no side benefits.. Even if the troop gave the young man a good foundation, they leave scouting and as the time slips away, so could be the values they learn depending on what other people and situations they get into.. The strangest thing I hit was going to an Eagle court for a young man who was in my sons cub scout den, but then they went to different troops, after the ceremony part as we had refreshments, I found out that the man getting his Eagle award was currently incarcerated for drug trafficking in his school.. The prison system gave him a one day furlough so he could attend his own Eagle court.. Don't know if he had his Eagle Board before being arrested or not.. I have a feeling that even if he was arrested before it, there was any way that the Eagle Board could deny him the award because of it, because he had done the shopping list of tasks, and this was a situation outside of scouting.

Contempt, no.. Because I don't hold the man/women & dog in contempt.. Fear, yes, the story shows fear of the dog.. But, in order for the story to fit closer to a black/white story.. The dog would have to just look mean, maybe be a little loud so we can say he barks a lot.. but be a lovable good natured dog.. Also the wife asking for entry could remain.. There were many blacks that did not get involved in the civil Rights movement.. Then the man?? Definitely would defend his dog, but he could take pride in talking about his dogs peaceful nature and can try to assure me, that while he has a loud bark outside when indoors he is quiet as he has no reason to bark.. The organized protests of the civil rights had a strong leader who pushed them to push for equality in a peaceful manner, so that the blacks were kept their dignity and pride, But, there peaceful protest 'caused the whites that killed and beat the blacks the only ones in the wrong, and soon caused the nation to see who was right, and who was wrong in the fight so that they backed the cause of the black people. They would not have, had the blacks in the civil rights movement gone around beating and murdering the whites.. Both would be wrong, and the war between the two organized hostile groups would have just raged on until they were all dead or in jail..

In the analogy the cat is the conservative religious sector in the BSA.. Note, it already is a member of my home..So they must be the whites (in the black & white world..) The other group, (Couple & their dog) just can't plausibly be tied in to the black population.. Guess again..

Not know their place or too uppity.. Let's say I owned two cats, one sweet and loveable, and one that is a cranky flea bitten bag that is always out fighting cats and even a dog or two in order to be king of the neighborhood, but both are part of my family and even the cranky one has traits I like, though I kind of wish he had a better personality.. So I got friends that I like a lot, and they ask if they can spend a week at my place while their house gets renovated.. I would love them to come, but there is a problem.. They got a mangy dog they want to bring with them.. He is known to have killed 3 or 4 cats and 5 or six more had to have surgery losing a tail, ear or paw.. They want to bring their dog to my house.. First I tell them I don't think the dog will be a good idea with my cats.. The husband gets all insulted and says how dare I say his dog would ever do that, He has yet to have eaten my cats, so it is very unfair.. (never mind the dog has never been near my cats).. So I point out all the other cats in the neighborhood he has eaten.. The husband defends the dog, after all you can't blame him cats are tasty, and it is in his nature to eat cats.. I am still unsold, so the couple leave the house with their dog, and I watch as he walks down my road in my neighborhood watching the dog slurping up 2 or 3 cats enroute and spitting out the bones, with the husband just patting his dog's head and saying "Was that good?? Yeah.. good boy!! " Well it will be interesting to watch how the UK fares, but one good thing, sounds like their main sponsors for the program are more like community centers of the town then churches.. So perhaps except for the oath, they may have less of a tie with religions, and atheists did not find a way to kick them out of the community centers due to the fact they weren't included.. So it might be less of a fire/water mix.. But, hopefully we will see some of our British friends who can keep us updated.

Here is something interesting coming to the UK soon.. I wonder why Cambridgskip didn't mention it... The British scouts are going to welcome in atheists with the idea I have to keep the religious tradition, but give atheists a separate oath they can take.. This will be a great testing ground to watch, although there legal system is different, so even if it works the question will be if there was a legal way the atheists could have forced full change, and did not go that root, -or- did the British laws not give them a legal avenue, yet ours would have one.. [h=1]British scouts to welcome atheists[/h] By Trevor Grundy| Religion News Service,June 28, 2013 CANTERBURY, England  The British scouting movement will soon welcome atheists who are reluctant to join the worldwide organization because they must take an oath to serve God. Trustees from the Scouting Association  whose patron is Queen Elizabeth II  are preparing to meet next week to approve a new scouting oath for atheists  thus putting them on par with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus. While those with religious affiliations will continue to promise to do their duty to both God and the queen, the new “Atheist Promise†(as it’s being called here) will say something different  although the exact words have not yet been released.

IT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WOULD INSULT THE CHURCH MEMBERS ON THE BB THAT SAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.. Your group did not need to do that, just sue them if you are going to sue them.. Because offering a discount that discriminates on the basis of religion violates the civil rights act of 1964, Well the Senior citizen discount, or child rates must be discrimination on age also.. Have you picked any fights over those? With discounts, sometimes you can use them, and sometimes you can't. So what? Atheists have the same first amendment rights as anyone else This is marginalizing the fact that you feel your first amendment rights give you a right to harass and insult anyone you like as long as you find a legal way to do so.. I never stated these people (the fringe group) were criminals, I stated they were antagonistic and would want into BSA simply to find ways to push to remove any religious tradition from the BSA curriculum.. Perhaps your argument it on the grounds of "civil rights" in being discriminated against due to religious beliefs because you are now a member of the BSA, and can not attend the Troops plans to go Christmas caroling at a nearby hospital, or whatever.. In fact I think that was the issue of the women who joined a group with religious ties, then complained about her civil rights being violated because her and (son? daughter?) were given the option to sit quietly, or walk away from the group for the (prayer? oath?) rather then be able to enjoy the whole program.. Wish I could find the piece, but I can't remember any words or phrases that picks up the surfing the net.. Sorry, but your explanations do not help in the least.. These are examples your group does not only focus on government owned properties.. Finding a way to legally push your agenda to be intolerant of other groups doesn't change the negative effect, and the fact that people who stoop to this type of rationalization as to why they are morally right to harass groups they dislike is not people welcomed in the BSA.. First you say your group would never behave in an intolerant manner toward religious groups, now you say, unless we can find a way to legally do so..

Sorry, I didn't get to this after work.. I ended up strangely with another person who thinks like Merlyn.. Someone left the Pack due to the vote & his beliefs.. I thought I had taken him off the email, but to the group, in an email about things we need to discuss.. I put in 2 to 3 sentences on him.. "I don't know who knows this, but Xxxxxx and his son has left scouting, due to the recent vote to accept homosexual youth in scouting. So we will wish him well." So he emailed back to the group that to explain that I had not stated things right, because somehow in that I said "HE" doesn't accept homosexual youth, and that he no longer follows the scouting laws and values.. So I wrote something back explaining what I meant be what I said.. And if anyone doesn't see what I meant, you can ask me to explain what I meant.. Anyway.. Merlyn.. Where to begin.. Just for clarity.. " Sorry, it's the majority I would welcome and the fraction I would want to make sure the BSA planned for how to deal with in a pro-active manner. Uh, that doesn't contradict what I wrote. I pointed out you keep bringing up atheists you don't want in the BSA, even in this thread, which is about an atheist being excluded by people who refuse to allow her to take the official promise. I haven't said one way or the other about which group of atheists is larger. " It was in answer to this that you wrote.. I don't care that you would allow some fraction of the "right kind" of atheists. In answer to this statement of yours: Or if these same people did join, why would consider entering BSA a place that religious tradition would be tolerated.. I can't really parse that, but if you're referring to people who want to remove "religious symbols from any public place", like I said, I don't know of any. Again, what people are you talking about? You haven't pointed to any specific people. Yeah, my bad.. I must have cut something out and totally garbled the statement.. I was more ask if these type of people would not have a interest in joining BSA.. I was thinking of the complaint of incoming homosexuals being the real effeminate personalities and having boys running around camp in high heels and pink silk, where it just didn't make sense that these young men would have an interesting in camping and hiking.. As to your comments as it is always on government property, not public.. I appreciate that is the main intent, but even that goes a little beyond civil disagreement, because most the time, it isn't enough to win, but there is a lot of finding ways to try to use the win to attempt to humiliate the looser.. Yeah, Yeah.. Probably they do it back to you.. But I don't get that with a win from the homosexual community.. They are just thrilled and enrich their lives with the win.. Well they don't have to remove symbols, after all that would be vandalism and worthy of jail time.. It's more in your face, insulting and harassing things, that don't just pertain to government places.. So if they have no interest in joining, why do you keep bringing up "people who want to join a group simply to create a hostile environment for all"? What people are you talking about? and I can't really parse that, but if you're referring to people who want to remove "religious symbols from any public place", like I said, I don't know of any. Again, what people are you talking about? You haven't pointed to any specific people. Take this article. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ohio-church-under-attack-by-atheist-group-56893/ This is by an organized atheist group, not just some yo-yo.. Although individual yo-yo's can do their own damage, and in BSA we usually get the individuals.. I know you can say "Well they should pay taxes.." or something.. But there are other things.. Putting their anti-religious message on the Churches Billboard?? (I don't know how it got their, they lied about who they were and what they were going to put up, or they put it up in the middle of the night..) I would imagine something legal or the church could have pressed charges.. This I have heard similar stories maybe not on the property, but on the lawn across the street or next door to.. Even with the taxes, I don't know about the law, I mean churches have many business type things that they raise money with, and it's non-profit, and yeah it may pay mortgage & electricity, but I depending on the church, that profit may be paying food for the homeless etc.. Still that is not what irks me.. It is just the continual attack on this one church.. There was a vendetta here, don't know what, but this was personal.. Another story.. the Lost Cajun Kitchen, a small, mom-and-pop restaurant located in Pennsylvania. The restaurant made news, because it offered a discount on Sundays to anyone bringing in a church bulletin, and a particular atheist decided to sue them over it. Little did the restaurant owners know just how good that action would be for business! Private business, not government.. Ok Atheists can't take advantage of the discount, but neither can you take a senior discount if it is for seniors, You can take advantage of a AAA discount unless you are a AAA member... So... What??? Perhaps I am being to sensitive, about this.. But, there hostility, does go over the line of just riding government of religious symbols..

Just a quick fly by, during a work break.. Merlyn sorry, for some reason did not see your last post until now.. I will get back to you after work.. I won't poke at you too much though, I see some real constructive discussion in your last post.. I am encouraged, so even though I though I would end it when I returned to work today, I will Try a few more go rounds and see if we can make some progress with some real communication.. But I need more time to study what you wrote, and think about it.. I have one or two things already, but it can wait until I have more time tonight..

No, not with official title and all.. The only one necessary to recharter each year from that list of 3 is the CC.. That doesn't mean that if you want to fill missing positions and step in to help, you can't without the official title.. But, I wouldn't if at all possible.. You need to find a way to have parents notice that in order for the Troop/Pack to be maintained there needs to be more then one or two people doing ALL the jobs.. If you step in and fill all the jobs, you will soon burn out, and stepping down will not be a little hole to fill, but a LARGE hole to fill, if your doing 3 or more jobs.. It also means no one will want to fill your job, because it is not a few hours a week, but the job will turn into someone having to spend all their free time.. The problem will not shrink it will grow as less & less people step up thinking your doing a fine job all by your lonesome, or if they step in to fill one job, they will go down with the sinking ship..

I don't know if it was Evmori that Merlyn wrestled with.. But, I have witnessed him many times when he has a bone between his teeth.. I'm just enjoying the battle.. I figure at sometime you guys will cut us off, or I will tire of it.. That might be soon. I had today off, but have to return to work tomorrow, so probably Merlyn will have to go find another bone to chew on.

Sorry, it's the majority I would welcome and the fraction I would want to make sure the BSA planned for how to deal with in a pro-active manner.. I take it the names you spouted out are people who were in units and were removed due to their beliefs.. I am sure they all were great people, and definitely did not want to go in to cause waves.. You can not sneak into a birthday party or a wedding to enjoy the activities if your plan is to come in guns blazing.. You would need to feel confident that you will not melt if you hear a prayer or worse yet, need to recite an oath with the word God in it. Now you could have spent all this time explaining to me, what the difference is between removing religious symbols from any public place, yet these very same people would have no interest to join BSA... Or if these same people did join, why would consider entering BSA a place that religious tradition would be tolerated.. If you can only rant and rave about my perception, but have no way to educate me as to why my perception is wrong.. Well, I have to stay with my perceptions.. Your choice.. Try to persuade someone to a different viewpoint positively, or rant and rave and build up the reservation they already have about your cause.. It's lucky I personally know a lot of atheists that have built my faith in the majority of your people being very wonderful decent and moral is strong, because if I didn't have that you just spent a day trying to persuade me that I should just be thankful, you group is denied entry.. And as I stated before, they agree with my opinion of their radical fringe element of their group, and understand why people are turned off by their actions.. So you need to also educate other atheists on why this group is not a detriment to their reputation..

Why did I have this nagging feeling that while no one but, Joe Bob said a peep.. I felt there were people just watching for the entertainment.. It's sort of like a tennis match huh?? "You started it!" "No, you started it".. "No you did".. "Well you were meaner".. I, think you should wait a little while, after all we still need the famous line "I'm gonna tell my Mommy".. (Or does my typing it right now, count?) Hi Guys.. Having fun in the balcony seats..

Gosh Merlyn! Please figure out why you think I'm disrespectful and a Hypocrite, and focus!! Your weaving and dodging to try to figure out what I said that makes me a hypocrite and disrespectful in your eyes, is making me dizzy!!! Yes, that statement is correct and truthful the big word in that statement being FRACTION. You can't say I am disrespectful for stating the truth. I am also not a hypocrite for stating the truth (Please re-read the definition).. Had I said all atheists, and created a prejudicial statement about the whole group, then I might be called disrespectful, but still not a hypocrite.. And as in typical Merlyn fashion, again, you missed the first sentence in that paragraph.. To only cherry pick what you wanted to. The first sentence was : If this [being part of the group] was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%.. Sorry, again, READ the whole post, and don't cherry pick to twist my words to insinuate different meaning out of what I wrote.. I have atheist friends who have told me they are embarrassed by this radical fringe, because it paints them in a bad light.. Hurting, not helping them gain respect within their communities. Would you like to call them disrespectful and a hypocrite of themselves?? Sorry, I don't like people who want to join a group simply to create a hostile environment for all.. Doesn't matter which group is creating the hostile environment.. I am alone on this belief.. When ever the forum lights up over someone creating a hostile environment, the main response is either remove them from the unit, or remove yourself from the unit, depending on if the person has the weight to remove the hostile person or not.. If you have a cancer, rip it out.. better yet take preventative action so you never get the problem. If possible be pro-active rather then retro-active. That makes me consistent in what I care about and believe in.. Which is the opposite of hypocritical, and makes me equally respectful to ALL groups..

Frothing at the mouth!.. I am laughing in hysterics at your childish behavior, and having a great time.. And again your inability to see in yourself exactly what you accuse others of (or just your feeling of entitlement to do unto others what you are insulted by anyone doing right back to you.. I am having real fun, because, with every post you write you paint yourself more into a corner, and continually loose more & more ground.. Hmmm… Probably if this happened to BSA, then I would end up trying to appease by allowing both the old & new oaths to be done, and you can pick the one you like, and stay silent and RESPECTFUL while the other group says the one they like.. Again only seeing the part of phrase you wish to see, and ignoring the rest of the paragraph???? Then spinning your own interpretation that I was stating only atheist needed to be respectful?? I also don’t see where I said they needed to respect ME, I said they needed to respect EACH OTHER… Reposting the GG PR statement still doesn’t prove a thing, except that PR statements put a smiley face on a history of complaints and bickering until they attempted to put an end to it with this decision.. I don’t have to take it up with them. I am not in that organization.. Doesn’t keep me from looking it and making my own decision on if it was good or not.. I can do that with policies that other state governments are making where I don’t live, such as I don’t think Texas has the right to attempt to create a state religion while outlawing someone else’s religious beliefs.. YOU want to impeach them, and you don’t live there!!!.. I think my stating my opinion of it, is not as bad as you thinking you have the right to go to TEXAS and vote them out of office, even when you don’t live there. Merlyn : As for the article, my view is that the atheist leader should be able to take the official promise. Who disagrees with that? Not me.. I said she should be able to take the official promise, and you called me disrespectful and a hypocrite to have that opinion.. (True, I also backed the other group.. shame on me)

And I stated I only disrespect those who disrespect others and therefore ask to be disrespected by their actions.. I respect anyone who finds how to tolerate and respect others.. I NEVER asked the disrespectful to respect ME.. First off I am NOT important enough to walk around DEMANDING respect from anyone.. All I said was that I would not welcome the radical fringe of your group into the BSA because they lack the ability to show tolerance and respect for anyone who has a different point of view.. Same as the radical conservative fringe of the conservative religious right.. They disrespect and want to eradicate homosexuals and atheists from their sight because it offends them, and try to force rules and laws in BSA and politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. Your radical fringe want to eradicate anything religious from your sight because it offends you, and try to force rules and laws politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. There is no difference between either group, except for what offends them.. Lies, Lies, twisting my words and making things up to spit out Lies.. That is not hypocrisy.. But.. Thanks for the answer. Since admit you are wrong for how you twist, and pick through my writing to make falsehoods about me..You have told me I have the perfect right to say anything I want about you and weather I I can either just accurately quote you.. (get a lot out of that alone.) Or like you if it's a slow day I can pick out parts and phrases of yours and blend them together to my purpose and throw out wild accusations about you.. Therefore where to start ??? This will be fun.. To my original question to you then got you all unhinged.. Sorry, you don't get the right to tell me I can't interpret your defense of your radical fringe buddies as meaning you agree with them.. I was comply with your wishes a few posts ago, and TRIED to give you an open ended question, to answer which of course you ignored.. What do you call a man who rants and raves over BSA rules that are unfair to him, and gets all flustered, when someone tells his group not to fight it but start a new group.. But.. when the shoe is on the other foot and his group wins a battle.. Delights in saying this.. “It appears their "love of god" means excluding people who don't believe the same as them, and also breaking the rules of the organization. Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?†Answer.. A man who demands all rules are written to benefit him, yet disregards the feelings of others when rules are written to benefit him and hurt others.. IS A HYPOCRITE!!! Look it up.. What do you call a man who demands that no one read what he writes and infer logical conclusions about them, because their LIES, but deems himself utterly within rights to do it to everyone else around him, even when he makes things up and twists words around to do so??? Perhaps the word that comes to mind is A HYPOCRITE!!! And lets add on disrespectful to boot.. Because it fits..

JBlake what makes you think our Founding Fathers set up for the nation to have tolerance for criminals.. They use to hang them.. I don't think they called bullies, bullies, but I am sure they had them.. I doubt the vision was to have tolerance for bullies..

Thanks Pint.. In the USA, the BSA has other programs that are not BS or CS.. They had problems with Venturing (or Venturers get confused with that), where the God thing got in the way of units that focused on professions like firemen or police.. In order to remove God, and allow in atheist they couldn't just do that, they had to create a whole new organization, change the name from Venturing/Ventures to Explorers and give it a different oath.. Then you could choose to join the new program (or not).. With the Ventureing/Venturer program (which is still a program in BSA, but a different on then what went to the Explorers.. They decided to be co-ed.. In order to do that, they had to allow the units the open option to decide for themselves if they wanted to be all male, all female or co-ed.. Except for a few things that the radical conservatives have gotten BSA to right rules that are only to appease them, to the detriment of all others, and a rule that says no unit can deny admittance to blacks for the sole reason of the color of their skin (you can for other reasons like discipline, troop too big to except anyone white/black or purple.) , and strangely enough homosexual youth (which I don't agree with.).. Their solution to contentious issues is to offer the units the choice .. "Local option".. To get back to mandatory admittance of a homosexual youth.. Why do I disagree with this, although I have been a loud voice in demanding the BSA open their doors to both youth and adult.. It is because I believe whole heartedly in local option where their are very polarized opinions.. I do not feel it is a good experience for the youth to be put into a unit where they are unwanted and disrespected, which hopefully a parent would never do to a child they care for, but we have known some real dingbats who would stoop to using their child as a pawn whether they are hoping the child will be "straightened out" by them, or they want to "stick it" to the unit.. If the youth is the one choosing to demand membership to a unit that does not want them, in order to cause trouble, well I feel it unfair for the unit.. I respect religions to have their beliefs, I just resent them forcing their beliefs on people who are not of their religion.. Now, if someday the government passes civil rights laws like they did with blacks, it would then be time for the BSA to mandate all units to follow the law, as they have to get over it and do so in every other public function they attend (accept for their church).. Until that time, they should be treated like the admittance of women and girls, and religions who only accept their own members etc. Also BSA should be teaching these kids to be upright citizens, and follow the law.. But I still would hope that if the youth is not the one wanting to join a group that will not welcome them the parents will have common sense not to put him into a hostile environment. Where there is no polarized viewpoints about something, then sure set unified rules.. Where there is polarized viewpoints, (especially political, religious or both) respect all the different viewpoints through local option.. I do not like someone else forcing their beliefs on me if I have a strong differing view.. I do not believe I have the right to force my viewpoint on others.. Except if their viewpoint is to deny others their rights or freedoms because they feel they have a right to force everyone to conform to their beliefs.. Well then I will chew them up and spit them out..

I asked you to prove either definition, you have proved neither.. Therefore you are still a liar. True -- Back then, I would have been in favor of Blacks coming into BSA, but not members of the Black Panthers.. Anyone killing and bombing etc would not be the right influende.. But, I would not want white murders and bombers in the BSA either.. If you want to defend why murders and bombers are respectful members of society you can defend them also while you are at it.. That is not disrespectful, that is being reasonable.. What is disrespectful is to point to the radical fringe and say because of the actions of the black panthers, no blacks should be allowed in the BSA, Black people are all alike.. What would be disrespectful is for me to point to your radical atheist fringe group and say see them?.. All atheists are like them, don't allow any atheists in they are all destructive and disrespectful and immoral.. Yes I have a problem with an organization deciding to change it's oath or it's rules to cater to only one part of it's group, denying the rights of others in the group. Doesn't matter what the PR statement says after the vote, the vote was made due to complaints by the atheists who demanded it be changed. PR will not delve into the negative.. I was also against BSA in the 1990 adding rules to throw out and deny membership to homosexuals in order to cater to the conservative Christian because it was unfair to the others who did not share the same beliefs.. I think the anti-atheist rule was always in place, so I can't comment on that while simply discussing rule changes.. We have been fighting back for our rights for years since.. And you have also argued against rules in the BSA that cater to this group.. But, let me ask you since the rules are set around denying membership to homosexuals and atheist, why do you fight these rules.. After all they are the rules of the BSA organization, accept it and stop fighting for change, or lamenting over them being unfair. What does that say about you to be all for restrictive policy that sides with your group, but against restrictive rules against it? Huh??' You are still a liar for calling me disrespectful... Or if you prefer, if you continue to claim you know me, and can make these statements about me.. Then I have equal rights to make claim that I believe every word I wrote about you, and have the right to ASSUME what I want about you and post it.. You can not claim the right to make false assumptions about me and post and defend them, although your defense is a ridiculous as your original claims and demand I not make assumptions about you and post them for all the world to see.. As stated I can be an adult and admit when I was wrong, you claimed you could do.. I only see a brat who refuses to admit that you have lost.. So continue on.. and on.. and on.. About how you know everything about everyone, and can make any crazy statement against them that you wish.. But, death to anyone who returns the favor.. I am still waiting for a rational discussion.. Know I won't get one.. But, love a fight where I have won it several posts ago, and the other party is unable to admit defeat so will continue on to their death.

Hypocrite - 1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings So you yourself have pull out of my past post where I have stated my support for atheists with reservation to the radical part of the group.. Prove to me where I have made a false appearance of virtue or religion?.. You don't know me personally, but I will allow you the option of proving where my acts are in contradiction to my stated beliefs or feelings.. Disrespectful ??!! To be one of the very few to support your group at all??? If you wish to support the radical fringe of your group, then that is the only way I can see you thinking me disrespectful.. Therefore the question to you Why are you defending them??? Look... I along with many on this forum and I also personally in my current scouting role have been fighting for years to remove the insane dictating control the radical religious conservatives have over how ALL units conduct themselves so that they can feel comfortable and wipe out all that offends them. I am not looking to hand the reins over to atheists with an agenda to control ALL of BSA in order to make themselves comfortable and wipe out all that offends them. I argue for local unit control in any argument that I take. For me you would be welcome, as long as you find or create units that have your values.. But, don't dictate that all units have to drop their religious values and traditions so that you can feel comfortable where ever you go, like you do with money or statues or what not. If a unit wants an xmas party if you don't like it, then don't attend.. (When in the pack we had someone against Halloween.. So objected to a pack Halloween theme.. Got all upset, when we said we would miss her as she thought we should drop the whole hay ride, party theme to cater to her whims). I am not in years of working hard to throw off one group of radical dictating conservatives who want the world to spin around them, in order to get messed up with another set of radical dictating atheists who want the world to spin around them.. Sure you should expect some accommodations, such as I would not expect you to be comfortable with the oath I say.. But, equally I don't want to change my oath nor do I want the religious sect to have to change their oath to accommodate you.. So, the only answer I have is two slightly different oaths.. We don't change for you, you don't change for us.. Religious Requirements - I understand you would have a difficult time with.. The solution The Requirement has alternates to choose from Choose A or B.. A being religious, B being something similar but without the religious element.. But, NO.. I do not want your group to demand that the religious groups change for you. Am I looking at your fight to rid the world of God on money and statues and whatever, every place that you might want to go, and the example of UK Girl Guides accepting in atheists and then requesting they change the oath to accommodate them as if they are now the only group that is worth consideration, nor acts by atheists around religious traditional displays in order to ridicule them as a potential problem to joining scouts?? YES.. yes I do.. Just as I look at the radical religious right as a current problem scouting needs to either get under control even if it means they will leave BSA in a huff.. In the meantime, as I have stated before, I am fine with those who can join and have small adjustments so that they can run a unit, but not all of BSA in a manner comfortable to them.. Is that disrespectful to all atheists? I think not.. Disrespectful to the radical atheists, maybe, but no more disrespectful then I am to the radical religious conservative. So if you want to defend them please do.. Either defend why they should become our new dictators if we allow them entry, or defend why joining BSA would be considered different for them then what they are doing all over the country in eliminating the mention of God.. Or why the radical element of your group would have no interest joining BSA, even for the fun of sticking a monkey wrench into the works.. But, since you refuse to explain that then I will have no reason to even reconsider my position. Bottom line you are lying about me being a hypocrite, I am very consistent. Local option, no dictatorship by the radical right, no dictatorship by the radical left, no dictatorship by the religious, no dictatorship by the atheists (if they are ever allowed to be members.) Find a unit that resembles you values and don't stick your nose where it does not belong.. You are also lying about me being disrespectful to atheists (at least to atheists that don't disrespect others and so ask for a reciprocal attitude.), since I welcome those who can be tolerant of different values and beliefs. As far as I am concerned it is not even disrespectful to defend your castle from anyone hostile. You are taking my words, twisting them around and saying untruths about me. You can't even twist to call me a hypocrite, either you don't know the meaning of the word, or your making things up.. Either way it's a lie.. I mistook it for misunderstanding my statements, and tried to re-explain myself.. But basically if you want to play the childish game of liar liar.. Then we will play the game. I don't think I have had such a childish fight since I was 10 years old.. Geesh!!!