moosetracker

Exactly Fred, choose the unit in your local that best mirrors your beliefs and values.. But, units (parents, scouts) with different values than yours should have the same rights.

That's funny because your post ahead of it calling me disrespectful and a hypocrate obviously predated my response to your rude and inaccurate comment about me. And was the very reason for my response back to you.

And from now on ditto from me.. because you have made wild accusations about me in this thread that is very wrong.. And you don't just do it to me, you do it to everybody you have a disagreement with.. If you don't like it from others, stop doing it to others. You can't demand from others what you don't practice yourself.

that line basic say you would not be happy with a state imposed religion.. Exactly what I said.. True, I would have been shocked if you defended a state religion, but you didn't.. Unless impeach these totalitarian idiots is a way you show support for something. At the same time the ban on Sharia law was going on, not even an honorable mention, so the article did not extend it's anger onto any legislation for or against religion.. Just anger about legislation for religion.. You did not disprove my assumptions. I don't need to type about you, you have typed all about you in this thread to uncover the fact that what I questioned you about that caused all your anger, is still a legitimate question to ask of you.. But, you need not answer it.. As stated through yout ranting, ravings and whinings you answered it. Thanks..

OK you got me, and I am adult enough to admit it, unlike you.. We remember the same time I complained. I did not think I started it though.. Same argument I make here. Most atheist are fine, and I would welcome them. This element of atheists I do not agree with and they are the reason that the BSA will not open their doors to any of them.. I was wrong with my posting it, but I was consistent with my viewpoint in that post as I am in this post. But, you said I posted articles.. Plural.. You need at least two, to be totally truthful. You on the other hand are totally inconsistent with your defense of atheists: Merlyn : "I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other. It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light. " Merlyn : "Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God†off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc, Yes, because money, the pledge, and public statues are supposed to be for everyone, not just the majority. How about putting "One White Nation" on our money, "One White Nation Under God" in the pledge, and having public statues dedicated to "white people"? If this was the case now, and a large percentage of non-whites wanted to change this, would they be the sort of people who should be kept out of the BSA for being too "uppity"? " So atheists would never act this way, but it is perfectly fine for them to act this way.. Doesn't matter that it is not something they did in scouting, your group is not in BSA scouting, so all you can do is look at what you do outside of scouting for foresee what the problems would be to incorporating you into scouting.. While there is a large group of respectful atheists who can respect others beliefs there is a fringe with a history of disrespecting the beliefs of others.. It points to a small subset in atheists that creates a good reason for atheists to be denied membership to anything that has even a small link with religion, be that BSA or the Masons or whatever.. Same pattern as how we can foresee how welcoming many members in the BSA would be about welcoming in atheists.. Their history and pattern of certain groups depending on their perspective being either welcoming or unwelcoming. History of certain groups jumping ship due to the change.. All of that can be looked at to foretell how the reaction of atheists in the group will be taken, regardless of the fact it has not happened yet. Your viewpoint is no better then NC trying to legislate a state religion and make illegal Sharia law. Now I am sure you would applaud them outlawing a religion, but I am sure you would not be happy with a state imposed religion.. I guess if you feel that every place open to an atheist needs to remove religion from your sight, then there will continue to be places that you will be excluded from so that the organization can enjoy their religious traditions. Bottom line you give them the reason to exclude you.. You always compare your group with the black struggle.. Black people never did anything to make white people fear their skin tone. Black people never demanded that they be included into groups so that they could force white people to follow their customs or traditions. Black people simply wanted to be treated with the same respect as white people.. Same can be argued of the homosexual civil rights movement.. They just want equal treatment, they have no need to conquer.. So whine all you want about being exclude, and continue proving the reason why you should be excluded by disrespecting everyone who does not agree with you.. See how far it gets you in winning your fight.

Wow!!! Merlin, That is a HUGE LIE.. I can not even try to consider it misunderstanding what I was trying to say. I once started a post that promoted Gay rights, other then that I have not started a thread about either Gays or atheist, I have just put my two cent onto many threads started by others.. For Atheists primarily that would be you, if not exclusively you.. I remember commenting on a thread started by someone else that had an article about atheists who put up mean-spirited crap in the middle of religious Christmas display on some town lawn.. I will still defend that stance. Disrespect is disrespect.. No matter which side started it.. Fine by me if atheists want their own time period to have their public displays of their anti beliefs, Fine if they want their own anti-religious statues in public places.. Even ask the US government whenever they are thinking of changing the dollar bill to add an atheist symbol into it somewhere.. Build up pride in your group and your anti-beliefs, don't tear down others beliefs in order to build yourself up.. I think it wrong when anyone who is religious makes some statement like all atheists are immoral, or can not raise children with ethics and other unfair Prejudicial things they say about a group of people they are trying to build themselves up by tearing someone down.. But, atheists are equally wrong to try to build themselves up by tearing apart those who are religious.. Thanks, I have my answer.. You can not persuade anyone that atheist will not be disrespectful to the religious members if they are accepted into BSA.. That's because you have no reasons as to why eradicating God from money and statues where it offends YOUR sensibilities is any different then feeling justified to destroy the religious element from BSA if allowed in.. Anytime a religious believer does something against your group it is an injustice. Anytime your group does something against religious people it is justified, Well again I re-state my stance. I will accept the inclusion of atheists some day, but only if there is added to BSA stronger rules to enforce the removal of any ("ANY") person who can not accept the differences of beliefs by others and can find away to respect them.. But, it will be a long time coming, might not be in my lifetime.. While they have an element in the group who is bent on ridding the world of religion, I don't think you will see a swelling wave of support by BSA members who are willing to sign petitions, and send in their eagle badges on behalf of this group. The lack of persuasion by people like Merlin on presenting their case as to why they would become beneficial members will keep the fight on the outside of BSA, while all you will hear on the inside of BSA is crickets chirp.. Too bad, there are many deserving atheists that are being denied a great experience due to the bad manners of a small subset of them. Scouter99 -- Nice story, but if it is suppose to point out why atheists have no business being included in the BSA it misses the mark.. It would be appropriate if the atheists were wanting to join the catholic church.. BSA is not primarily a religious group, it has a religious element, but is more about camping, outdoor skills and raising youth to be upstanding citizens.. BSA does not have "Christian" or "Religious" in it's name, they do not promote religion as the top attraction when recruiting new members.

So I whined in one post. and that just to show to you how you have been acting over this issue, If you see whining in these comments then, you see a mirror of yourself. by not accepting a question as a way to ask you to open up, by not seeing that your comment that I was being disrespectful to atheists by welcoming them in only if they are of the mind to be respectful of those who have a religious belief, this based on the fact that you do have a FRACTION of atheists who are bent on not being tolerant of those with religious beliefs.. There are few on these boards who will give atheists in the group a second thought.. If my being welcoming with a few reservations, is being disrespectful of your group, and a hypocrite.. Well then you are displaying an attitude of not being willing to address those concerns.. Is this an attitude of someone who is respectful of others? Is this the action of someone who wants to put someone who is leaning in your direction, to become totally convinced that your group will be an positive influence to the group dynamic.. I expected from you a serious discussion as to WHY you feel atheists will make good neighbors, and do not see the entrance to BSA as then being a reason to demand that God be eradicated in order to How did you put it about money and statues quote : [are supposed to be for everyone, not just the majority.}.. When if you push to eradicate God, you are simply making the world be for your group, at the expense of the majority.. I got no serious conversation.. Just Ranting and Raving by you about how my interpretation of your writing and asking you to discuss this, is a lie.. While every comment that you made about me was totally picking and choosing and then interpreting what you THOUGHT I said, or what you THOUGHT I meant.. Over and Over and Over again.. You are attempting to tell ME how I felt and you are wrong, OVER and Over and Over again.. So either stop whining and give me a serious discussion as to why you think atheists and the religious sector can co-exist in the BSA and respect each others viewpoints, and stop whining about how unfair I am to even consider it a potential problem.. "Methinks you doth protest too much..." Sorry it does nothing to relieve my hesitation on the subject matter.

Merlin : "You might not have noticed, but as far as I can recall, every instance that I've called people out-and-out liars in this forum is when they try to tell me what I think or feel, as if they can read my mind, and they also managed to get it wrong in each case. " Merlin : "Then you should have no problem coming up with an exact quote from me that means "Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?" But instead you just re-read what I wrote and make up how you think I "feel" due to your own prejudices." Ok Merlyn , If asking you an open ended question that is aimed at you opening up and explaining to me why I am picking up a vibe from you I have never sensed from you before.. The same comment also included this "Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. ". Let me point out where you have LIED about me.. (I chose to think you misinterpreted, but your comments were statements, and asked for no open minded discussion about it. So if I am lying about you in asking you to explain your comments, you are lying more about me in these close minded statements. 1) "Then you should have no problem coming up with an exact quote from me that means "Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?" But instead you just re-read what I wrote and make up how you think I "feel" due to your own prejudices." (I had to repeat it.. because this was not the purpose of my open ended question.. Point out to me where I even made a statement, or where I said this question was asking you was a quote by you?? So.. Liar, Liar, pants on fire!.. 2) "Just like you're not being respectful of atheists right now. Hypocrite" I ask you to point out where in my statements I have said I disrespect atheists? and Where in my statement do I claim to be a Hypocrite..? Liar, Liar, pants on fire! 3) "It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light." Point out to me where I said the other group is all sweetness 'n' light? Point out to me where I said the whole group of atheists are trouble.. I said A FRACTION of atheists.. I made NO comment about current members.. You read into that what you wanted to.. So, are you stating ALL atheists are angels and absolutely NO ONE has an ulterior motive? Yet at the same time you defend banning all religious displays from public view, because public displays because these are for everyone, not just the majority.. So explain how you can respect the tradition of religion having deep roots in BSA and not view BSA opening their doors to your group does not mean anyone in your group would ever dream of trying to ban religion from BSA in order to accommodate y "everyone". Where did I state that NO current BSA member will not be welcoming to you.. Why does not mentioning that problem mean I am stating there is no problem.. They don't need mentioning, they are the KNOWN ELEMENT and have a history that makes it a known fact what the reaction will be, and also a known fact on how to deal with it. There are BSA units that don't welcome women leaders, there are groups that are not welcoming homosexual groups. There are still groups that don't welcome blacks. There are groups who don't welcome the handicap. There are groups that don't welcome anyone who is not of their religion.. What will you have to do coming in? Find a group that welcomes you and which you feel comfortable with their values. Or start a group that will have your values.. For you that will be easy. As soon as homosexuals and atheist are accepted, then you can start forming groups in public schools again.. Liar, Liar, pants on fire! Hmm.. Your lies are starting to add up..

I am not lying about you. I am reading what you wrote and interpreting it due to what I read, and responding to what I read.. The first time you said the GG who are fighting the change in the oath could form their own group, I saw sarcasm. The second time I saw it I saw anger and seriousness.. Also calling me a hypocrite for my statement that both were wrong for not trying to find compromise, also I did not see as sarcastic but of anger.. This anger I interpret as you feeling that the atheist is totally right for not compromising and the Troop as totally wrong for not compromising.. Therefore a statement that atheists should not respect the beliefs of others in the organization.. They should force compliance from those they have conquered.. That is not lying that is responding to what I interpret you to be saying.. I did not state what the GG Troop was doing wrong, because you already stated that quite eloquently already.. I added to it why BOTH parties were wrong, by adding to your statements, why the atheist was equally wrong. But, I very strongly stated that BOTH parties were wrong in this argument, and I never argued with your interpretation as to why the GG Troop was also in the wrong.. That you choose to overlook that and tell me I was stating that only the atheist was at fault I would call a lie if I was to take things as black and white as you seem to be doing. Instead.. I will say you and I are both misinterpreting each other’s statements. My comment was not on assumption, but due to what I read at the time the vote took place. I remember an article at the time of the decision, that pointed to there being a push for the change, by Atheist who felt it was unfair to them.. One story was on some parent who was against the oath and felt she had to walk with her child out of ear shot so he wasn’t confused by what she was teaching him. The word God was taboo anywhere around them, and therefore they should change to respect her wishes.. To hell with anyone else’s beliefs.. Both sides are wrong if both refuse to find compromise.. But only one side is wrong if one side is looking for compromise and the other is not.. In my first comment I stated Both were wrong.. The atheist for not offering a compromise solution of both oaths, or looking for a local Troop who would welcome her, but instead forcing the unit to comply by placing a complaint to national for FORCE them to comply.. The Troop is also wrong, for starting out with an attitude that they will not accept or make any atheist comfortable in their group.. To not bend or find a suitable compromise.. An established group, not welcoming a new member is wrong. A new person entering a group both guns blazing, is no way to make new friends. I also stated that I felt National was wrong in not finding a compromise to allow both viewpoints to co-exist.. Is two oaths a great solution forever? Probably not, but it allows respect to both sides of the argument until they can grew to accept each other and be more affable to going to one oath again that both can live with.. Slapping one group down in order to bend over backwards for the other group is no way to finding a congenial solution until both groups can find a way to put down their weapons and accept each other for who they are, is simply a better way of getting oil and water to mix.. This decision, of an oath that gives victory only to one side, caused the weapons to go up and the war to rage strong. I also did not state that ALL atheists want to be given entry to BSA to destroy it.. But, that I guesstimate that possibly 25 to 40 percent have this in mind (I should clarify that I was thinking of the activist section of the atheist group when I wrote that) . Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God†off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc, rather then accepting they live and work and socialize with others who are by someone destroy something they hold dear to them and have no desire to find ways to co-exists with this other group.. This group among your midst concerns me.. This is not based on an assumption of what they might do, but on what they are currently actively DOING.. You have the majority who are good people, you have a fraction who enjoy seeing anyone with a religious belief hurt and/or angered.. Unfortunatly the quiet peaceful sector do not make the news.. Still I know they are the majority, and they have a right to be allowed into BSA.. But what to do to insure the destructive group is not welcomed is my problem. Perhaps the rules around tolerance need to be strengthened.. So that intolerence is a reason to be removed from BSA membership. A quick way to eminate anyone who has blatent disregard to the beliefs and dignity of others. this would tamp down either side, the religious groups for finding predjudicial fault with homosexuals or atheists or whatever they choose is beneath them (but to respect them, they need to have control over who can be members of their own group so they can happily exclude within their group, just can't make this decision for all other units). And the atheists who want to enter BSA to force those who believe in the tradition of religion being part of the BSA to be forced to watch it be removed.. It means finding a unit that is closest to your values or starting one that has your values, rather then entering one that does not and demanding they change to only address your needs at the expense of all others in the group.. But, here I am dreaming though as people who have the belief they are born to rule everybody on moral conduct, is being denied the right to follow their belief and rule the world.. SIGH.. Would be nice though.

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other. I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose.. At camp or other combined events, both oaths are done, and the person chooses which they prefer saying.. Eagle boards, either oath is valid. Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group. Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?.. To me that is hypocritical. Sorry.. As stated, this is where I do not agree with you. Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. Well I am still going to side with those atheists who would just like to join and find a way to blend in and be apart of.. I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other. I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose.. At camp or other combined events, both oaths are done, and the person chooses which they prefer saying.. Eagle boards, either oath is valid. Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group. Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?.. To me that is hypocritical. Sorry.. As stated, this is where I do not agree with you. Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. Well I am still going to side with those atheists who would just like to join and find a way to blend in and be apart of..

Fair enough Cambridgeskip, just thought if you had more to the story, you could enlighten us..

Merlin Leroy - No, I got the sarcasm.. It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story.. Since the story indicates that the atheist is not trying to find compromise, either by asking that both pledges are said, or looking if there is a different troop in the area that has conformed.. I do not see the GG troop as the only one acting incorrectly.. Also my comment is based on the fact the promise was changed by National to only respect the atheists and not the religious base that has been their original base group and I assume is still the greater portion of the group.. The change was made because atheist came into the group and instead of looking for a compromise that would make each group happy, they disrespected the beliefs of the group they were entering and lobbied National to only placate to their beliefs.. This action of atheists is why I am much more vocal about supporting the inclusion of atheists in BSA, and only slightly siding with you about including atheists.. Homosexuals want to be in scouting to be part of the group, and though homophobias will claim that they will insist that we all become homosexuals, or are joining in order to rape us all in our sleep, (which is pure bunk), They may push hard to be accepted equally, but they do not push that everyone become homosexuals. I can respect that. I have no problem with a group that just wants to be accepted.. If this 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%.. But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.. Therefore I can only see my support for this effort as somewhere between 60 to 75% based on what I estimate is the "normal people" atheist group and the "activist" atheist group.. With homosexuals, I also do not believe in local option.. Meaning that no unit should be forced to accept homosexuals if they are totally against them. I don't see it healthy for either party. The homosexuals should want to go to a group where they are welcomed and made to feel part of the group.. Obviously this group and this atheist are not a good mix. The atheist should look for a group that accepts her with open arms, then force compliance by a group that does not want to change. (The comments above are based on the article as written) OK Cambridgeskip.. You have stated the story is not accurate.. Is this because this rag has a reputation of never having a correct story.. Or do you happen to know the true story.. Have more respectable news agencies debunked this story, where you can give us the more accurate story?.. Even FOX can every now and then do a story that is not debunked.. Or is just corrected for their snarkiness or biased on the subject.. I did not really see which side they were pushing in this story. It seemed more like a report really created a demon or an angel, it just seemed to report both sides of the argument. So I wasn't able to pick out the pure bunk..

BOSTON ACCENT !... I don't think so!.. Welcome back Beav, where ever you are.

Well the new saying IS much more longer.. I too would resist anything that makes something longer & harder.. Seriously though Merlyn here is where we split.. Though I would be fine with some change to include atheists, I would expect Atheists to come in respecting the beliefs of others.. 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.. This may not be what National would be happy with, but I don't believe that atheist should come in and disrespect the beliefs of others... Probably over the course of cycle of scouts in & out of the unit, the whole group of newer scouts would be happy to just pick up the newer oath.. Unless of course they had parents with "issues".. (Ok make that two cycles.)

I guess their definition of "happy" is as illusiveve as the articles definition of "unhappy" or "depressed:.. Which kindof states the article as junk science.. Sorry as stated I don't know where the stats were pulled.. The article is not filled with hard facts or figures.. I am sure if the study is out there it at least host some sort of criteria, though like this article they could be explained as pointing to something else..

Yeah this summer as a UC I organized a meeting between the IH of our catholic church and the key three of the BS & CS units.. I had a fear there maybe some issue as the only member of the church who had a son in the CS unit left stating it was due to religious reasons.. The IH seemed like a laid back guy and never had approached anyone with concern on the issue.. But, the guy also made it sound like there might be a vote by the Catholic church in January, so I though we might as well discuss it and be prepared if there was an issue or possible future one.. No issue in the Catholic church.. The father of this church held the same view I did, that though they have a right to their religious views, so does everyone else have a right to practice theirs.. He had already discussed things with the higher uppers (whoever those are, I am not Catholic).. And they have no issue with the youth vote, and have already discussed the inevitable future vote for the adults, they have already decided that when that happened, there would be no issue with them at that time either.. (I assume this is with the expectation that they are not forced to accept adult leaders they feel are not suitable.) He also agrees that it would be wrong to work with a child in a youth group for years, then kick them out when he decides he is a homosexual. By then the church and the boy have established a relationship with each other. The church also currently hosts a Girl Scout unit, and.. Well we aren't yet as liberal then them even if we accept in the adult homosexuals as leaders.. I thought it funny that so many have stated my viewpoint so insensitive to Catholics especially, and I find talking to them, their viewpoint is in line with them.. Well OK, I would except the homosexual leader if he/she did not have other reason they would not make good candidates.. But, I never was of the opinion everyone must accept homosexual leaders, simply that everyone should have the right to local option in choosing what did and what did not make an acceptable adult leader, based on their viewpoints. Sounded like this guy tried to talk his catholic priest into kicking us out, and tell him what his viewpoints should be on the subject, and the Priest tried to talk him down from the ledge.. Sounded like the guys politics told him what his religion should believe in, not his religion. If he had stated he was leaving due to his politics and not due to his religious beliefs, I could have saved myself a meeting in the middle of the summer.. But it was good in other ways, we cleared up a lot of issues and got on the same page about many things.. I think it will be good to have one annually. (Just not mid Summer, that was difficult to get everyone together for.)

Those who currently charter BSA Units yet feel the treatment of homosexuals to be wrong have either chosen to host BSA units anyway while fighting for change, or never started a unit due to it, or have been slowly dropping them over time.. So I doubt many would have left due to the vote, which just having the vote proved the tied was changing and they were close to a change..

I liked the comments left.. Especially the two, one stating Scandinavia is the least religious country, and have more single family homes (I assume it was to state they are less happy).. The next comment stated Scandinavia was ranked as having the happiest people in the world, which would then disprove the theory.. Don't know where either picked up those statics or if they are true.. But if true, that's funny

Pack18Alex "It's unclear that TM reasonably feared for his life" Huh???? TM is dead, shot to death by GZ, and yet you question if it was reasonable for TM to fear for his life??? I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "yes", he correctly had reason to.

I know, I know.. But society was coming to an end with other generations.. I definitely heard that from people of my Grandparents age about your precious 1950 era.. I know from reading (I knew no one that old) that at the time of the civil war the freeing of the slaves meant the end of society was close at hand.. Perhaps if we keep fighting amongst ourselves it might happen.. I though am hoping that our country will somehow struggle through until this time period until those trying to turn back the clock die off, and the push-me pull-you fighting will stop and society will get back to normal. But, you never know, we probably will continue to struggle for another 10 to 20 years, before the dam is broken through.. Hopefully our country is strong enough to endure that, otherwise.. Yes, we might go the way of Rome or Greece.. But from the ashes, I am sure something will spring forth..

jb "By the way, my father grew up in a rural area and his only positive recollection of those years was the farm could produce a subsistence lifestyle that got them through." Well you missed some hum-dinger "When I was your age" speeches.. You would think every one lived the life of "The Waltons" on steroids.. No crime, everyone knew their neighbors.. Women knew there places (remember WWII started the independent women getting more into the work force).. Families were closer, you appreciated the things you had, and anything new that you got.. There was none of this drinking, sex and rock and roll"..' You even got the walking 3 miles to go to school speech.. Now my Grandparents childhood, (about 1910), Again, a lot less population.. No crime (no one ever had crime in the society they were kids in.. very strange).. More walking 3 miles to go to school, and girls need not go after about 5th grade, as they more needed to learn how to take care of their home and family.. The time of the horse & buggy with very few cars.. People came to the house, Doctors, milkman etc.. Families were closer, you had time to pay calls on your friends and neighbors, with local parties and proper dances.. Ladies were respectable ladies.. Oh yes, and people knew their place in society and did not associate with those not of their class.. All these inter-marriages, our society was becoming a bunch of mutts (this was not black/white marriages or homosexual, this was catholic marrying protestants, and Irish marrying Germans etc.. and of course marrying beneath your station in life..) According to my paternal grandmother, my sister and I were being brought up as heathens with no manners.. But since my Father married a mutt (my mother) you could not expect much from us..

JBlake - Romanticizing your youth is a sign of getting old.. Your Parents did it, Your Grandparents did it, Your Great-Great Grandparents did it, Your Great-Great-Great Grandparents did it. People who grew up in the time of the Great Depression still could romanticize that time period. I had a conversation with someone at work who was stuck in romanticizing his childhood of the '50's also.. Watch all the old 1950's shows now and think Wow those were the days.. Like that wasn't a plastic made up world of perfection.. Let's forget about the fact child abuse was simply taken care of by turning a blind eye to it, same with wives that were abused. Rape was the womens fault.. Ask an African American if they feel the 1950's was the most perfect time period for them, especially if they lived in the south.. Not that I think today is wonderful, just that the 1950's wasn't all that either, nor were the 1930's, nor were the 1900's, nor were the 1880's..

OK.. How's, this.. I disagree with your statement that a healthy family starts with a mom and a dad.. It starts with a group of people live with each other and who care for and protect each other.. If that includes children, then a health family is loving, protecting and making those children feel secure.. Laws should work to protect that family in making them feel secure and able to protect and care for each other.. the should not work against that family in order to rip them apart in a time of crisis.. Death of a parent (where custody may be in question and/or property subject to death taxes), health problems of someone in the family (either with ability to visit in the hospital, or put them on your health plan).. Marriage of same-sex couples should guarantee them the same rights as heterosexual couples.. The argument to make some separate but equal thingy will just not work due to peoples prejudices.. Proof is with the separate but equal for blacks.. Prejudice will find ways to hurt the family's they disapprove of.. would change with what Politian was in office, protect the family with laws, rip those laws away from them.. Put the laws back in place, rip them away.. This does not help to create a healthy family or a safe and secure environment.. But, the problem is not within the family unit, but due to prejudice people who need to stick their nose in and attempt to destroy and hurt that which they dislike..

If Travon is still allowed to be black, then he would chances are he would have gone to jail for at least manslaughter. Even if Zimmermon had his gun out and drawn. In Flordia just recently a black woman was sentenced to (I think they said 20 years) for firing a gun into a wall even though no one was hurt. She did it to scare off her ex, who was threatening her.. I think I heard some static that for cases involving whites they get off by reasonable doubt 23% of the time, for blacks only 3% of the time. (Correction I just heard it again.. If White and kill a black 35% justifiable Homicide. If Black and shoot someone 3% justifiable homicide.) Now put Travon with the gun and Zimmermon with the skittles and ice tea.. Ask if Trayvon would have gotten off with reasonable doubt. I don't know if this is the system being too light on whites or too hard on blacks.. Or a little of both.. But the defense yesterday stating that if Zimmermon was black he would have never gone to trial would have been laughable if it wasn't such a slap in the face, unless it was total stupidity (which I doubt). I think if that lawyer doesn't want to be hiding out with Zimmermon in what ever hole he has now crawled into in order not to be gunned down. He should learn not to make anymore public statements, but just slink off into the sunset.

Perhaps in your narrow minded view of the world Eagledad, but seriously you should get out more.. Children grow in a secure environment be it a mom or Dad, a single mom or a single dad, two moms or two dads, grandparents.. Does it need a marriage certificate, in some ways no, in some ways yes.. They need to feel secure that if something happens to one parent they can continue life with the other parent.. The home the family grew up in will not be ripped away from under them because the parent who died was the one owning the home.. That they are recognized as belonging to both parents so that they don't run into one parent having the health benefits through their job, but unable to put the children on those benefits because the children legally are seen as belonging to the other parent. I am sure there are other benefits laws that recognize their family unit help the children to feel more safe and secure, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.