Peregrinator

Exactly how recent, would you say, Pergrinator? Since the late 19th century. And what is your definition of democracy "in the modern sense"? One person one vote, universal suffrage, etc.

But they still can't touch god's [sic] rate of ~30% miscarriages per pregnancy. Good to know you've started to accept the existence of God.

And since you just ask about 'humans', history is rife with examples of murder of unpopular minorities being legal, and often helped by governments. Oh, I definitely agree that a tyrannical and oppressive government could commit "legalized" murder, just as a tyrannical and oppressive government could give "legal" "right" to men to "marry" other men and women to "marry" other women. But that would not change what marriage is.

It is amusing to see our little organization which is dedicated to creating good American citizens fail miserably at using democratic participation, our single-most dearly held tradition, to make decisions. Democracy in the modern sense is a pretty recent innovation, even in the United States.

And "by definition" arguments fail, since humans create them and change them all the time. So do you think it would be possible for humans to change the definition of, say, murder, to make gay murder legal?

The same argument was used to defend laws against mixed race marriages, and it didn't work. Except that marriage is between one man and one woman by definition, not one black man and one black woman, or one white man and one white woman. Still, the State still has authority to regulate marriage within certain parameters, such as criminalizing incest (which laws differ from State to State).

Questions for the group - is marriage an inalienable right. If it is an inalienable right, does a majority have a right to vote to take away an inalienable right from a minority? If it is not an inalienable right, then what is it? Yes marriage is an inalienable right but the minority hasn't had any rights taken away at all. Those who identify as homosexuals can marry -- that is, homosexual men can marry women and homosexual women can marry men.

I don't need "natural law" to tell me that murder is wrong. What tells you that murder is wrong?

There would probably be more respect for The Rules if they were democratically decided rather than being imposed from afar by a group of people that no one knows the identity of. Why would one think that? If the rules are decided democratically then they are subject to change at the whim of the mob. Why would anyone follow such a rule?

Why would one want to belong to a voluntary, private organization whose national policies one openly rejects?

I'm sorry, but natural is exactly about what occurs in nature and happens naturally. Yes, but that is not what the natural law is concerned with. The natural law is concerned not simply with whether something is "natural," but whether creatures act according to their nature. Murder is "natural," but the natural law condemns it. A man who commits murder is not acting according to his nature.

Moral Conundrum - The act of discriminating against a group or groups based on a societal code, while shielding criminals from prosecution in order to shield oneself from financial harm. That sounds more like the Devil's Dictionary.

Surely you're not holding them up as an example to be followed?

Natural law isn't about simply what occurs in nature (and, in any case, as SP points out, animal behavior is a poor guide for human behavior -- will anyone argue that it is not wrong for humans to engage in cannibalism or infanticide? Because animals do that sort of thing) but more about whether creatures act according to their nature. It's the nature of lions to kill their rivals, but one can't use that fact to prove that such acts are "natural" for humans. Likewise, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior (and I frankly think that the evidence for such, especially in the wild, is scanty) can't be used to show that such behavior is natural for human beings.

I agree with BadenP -- adults should focus on scoutcraft not so they can gain recognition for it but so they can deliver the best possible program to the boys in their charge. However, it might not be a bad idea for the BSA to start a Rovers program. And Baden-Powell never intended for there to be an upper age limit to Rovering. That sort of program would be good for an adult who has little or no interest in being a leader, or who doesn't have a troop he can help lead, or who simply wants to improve his skills without taking time away from his troop.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie. That is precisely the problem. You made a generalization which does not apply in all circumstances. And you are still confusing part with type. If you had written, "There exists a form of polygamy such that, if it were made legal, would also require same-sex marriage to be legal," then you might have a point. But that isn't what you wrote. You wrote that "legal polygamy" -- ALL FORMS!! -- " requires legal same-sex marriage."(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion. No it doesn't. Why not? It's just "blowback". Blowback is a term used to describe the consequences of aggressive actions. It doesn't mean that the people who take part in the blowback are absolved from blame. Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent. It will never be non-existent, certainly not if atheists continue to view minor inconveniences (which are faced by everyone) as impositions.

In that case, nothing is ever "imposed" on anyone. Quite wrong, since one has the option to not go to a museum, to not look at a display, to not pray, to turn one's eyes away from a prayer banner, etc. Well, now it's obvious you aren't even familiar with the prayer banner case, as reciting prayers wasn't part of the case AT ALL. Why do you insist on commenting out of total ignorance? It was not important to me, so I forgot about it. But in this case it is even more ridiculous. It seems to me that it is much easier to avert one's eyes from a prayer banner than it is to eschew saying prayers when all one's classmates are saying them. I mean, do atheists and their apparatchiks expect to be taken seriously when they complain that their eyes fell on something religious? Weren't you recently remarking on the phenomenon of religious conservatives being afraid of atheist cooties from the likes of Ayn Rand? Are atheists afraid of religious cooties? Do they think that prayer murals/banners/public crosses force them to become religious? Because that is what "imposing" means. So threats of death are not good enough now? I'm not excusing threats of death. I was referring to the "imposing" of religion upon atheists in this country, which is practically non-existent, especially compared with historical impositions of religion and those that still exist in other parts of the world.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong. It isn't wrong. One can simply avoid going to the museum or avoid going to that particular display. In a school, one can simply eschew saying prayers. Are atheists in general so prickly and easily offended, or just the ones on the Internet? If an atheist rejects the existence of God, why does he have such hatred for religious symbols and practices? Why do Christian symbols in general, and the cross in particular, have such a power over atheists? Let me know when you get fined or imprisoned or killed for not assisting at religious services (like recusant Catholics in England under Queen Elizabeth I) and then we can talk.

No, the "public expression of religion" does not include unlawful government imposition of religion. Having a cross in a public museum or prayer in a school does not impose anything on anyone. Besides, in the words of Kenneth Bronstein of NYC Atheists, "The cross is not a miracle. It is just a couple of rusty girders." Only an atheist would claim that something is a couple of rusty girders and then expect to be taken seriously when he says it is an imposition of religion. I use it against bigots like yourself. Stop whining. Oh, I'm not whining. I don't mind being called a bigot. I am simply pointing out that your use of the word doesn't have the effect you seem to want it to have -- in fact, probably the opposite.

Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion. Case 1 and 2 certainly are. That the atheists in question may have the law on their side doesn't change the nature of their protest. In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing. You throw that word ("bigotry") around so much in this forum that it's become meaningless. By the way, I am not arguing that the death threats, etc., were justified. I am simply pointing out that when one attacks what people hold dear, one should not be surprised when they respond with threats and violence.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

Actually, that happens. Bill Clinton was elected twice and never received a majority. That is true, each time he was elected he received a plurality of the popular vote (i.e., more than any other candidate). There has only been one occasion when a candidate has received a majority of the popular vote while losing the Presidential election. In the first case, Rutherford Hayes was elected while Samuel Tilden won the popular vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876 There is at least one other example of a candidate receiving a plurality of the popular vote while losing the Presidential election - Al Gore in 2000.

At (3), you are committing the fallacy of division http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division I say my car is heavy You point out that the knob on my car radio is not heavy You get a [golfclap] but no cookie Are you saying that you don't understand the distinction between something's being a part of something else and something's being a type or form of something else? A knob is not a type of car -- it is a part of a car. On the other hand, polygyny is a type of polygamy -- it is not a "part" of polygamy. How about this? You say that cars have two doors, therefore the doors on cars are required to be a certain width. I respond that sedans have four doors, therefore the door width requirement does not apply to them. The set of cars includes sedans, but sedans are not parts of cars. They are cars. Likewise, the set of polygamous marriages includes polygynous ones, but a polygynous marriage is not a part of a polygamous marriage -- it is a polygamous marriage.

In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny Polygyny is a counterexample. Here's the proof: (1) Legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. Therefore: (2) All forms of legal polygamy require legal same-sex marriage. (3) Polygyny is a form of polygamy. (4) Legal polygyny does not require same-sex marriage. (5) Legal polygyny is not inconsistent in not requiring same-sex marriage. But this, with (4), contradicts (2); therefore (5) There is a form of legal polygamy that does not require legal same-sex marriage. (6) Therefore legal polygamy does not require same-sex marriage. Q.E.D. In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny, which changes the situation (besides that, I don't agree with your assertions). If you don't agree with my assertions, show how they are wrong. I "limited the set" to provide a counterexample. That is pretty common logical reasoning (called proof by contradiction or, sometimes, reductio ad absurdum) You need to show it's inconsistent if ALL forms of polygamy are legal, because that's the situation I referred to. No, actually I don't. To prove your statement is false I need only produce a single counterexample. If a statement is true it's true all the time. Your statement isn't.

Opposing the public expression of religion is not demanding equal rights.