DanKroh

"You don't want other people to use their beliefs to tell you how to run your life. What about you telling others how to run their life? You want to tell people who they can hire and fire? You want the government to tell people who they can and who they can not sell their house to." No, I don't want to tell others how to run their lives, up to the point where they start impacting my ability to make a living and find a place to live. In any case, *I* don't do that, the government does. (Oh, and fair housing only applies to landlords, not to homeowners selling a property.) If you don't like those laws, then petition to change them. "Doesn't seem to libretarian to me." I said libertarian leanings. Not all my positions are libertarian, but some of them are. I don't believe in blindly following any ideology. "You asked me what persecution was. That's when I mentioned physical harm. Your theft analogy is silly. No one denies the governments right to protect citizens from theft." Actually, what you said was "As long as they [bigots] do not physically harm anyone else, it is not the governments job to get involved.". I said theft doesn't cause physical harm, yet the government protects us from it. Evidently, then, you now agree that the government has a right to protect its citizens even from things that do not cause physical harm (like theft). I happen to think discrimination and injustice are also some of those things that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from. I wish the government didn't have to exercise that duty, but as long as there are groups out there who wish to demonize those who are different and in the minority, it seems the government must do so.

So, TheScout, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster more or less absurd than: golden plates containing revelations that can only be translated with "magic glasses"? that people are really beings of pure spirit that can travel outside their bodies whenever they want and have existed for trillions of years? that God lives near a star called Kolob? that Xenu, an alien ruler, brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago in DC-10s? a deity who has somewhere between 4 and sixteen arms and the head of an elephant, and who rides a giant mouse? One man's absurdity is another man's devout religious belief. Be careful how you judge both.

Gigibw, In the situation you have described, the man in question has committed battery on two people. This incident should be reported to the police.

I'm definitely torn on this issue. On the one hand, having a chest full of knots can seem to some people to be boastful and pretentious. On the other hand, they are also an indicator to someone who may be looking for guidance, "oh, this person has experience". If I'm a new Tiger Den Leader, for example, someone who has a Tiger Den Leader knot is someone who I would seek out for advice. Someone without the knot may have equally good advice, but without that knot, how am I supposed to know if they have "been there, done that"? I could go around asking each person if they have been a Tiger Den Leader, which isn't a bad way to meet new people, but the knot makes it easier to recognize who has been in that boat. Also, as someone else said, especially given that we are for the most part volunteers, there's nothing wrong with a little recognition of the years of service given to the program. But I do think it can reach a point where it starts to look a little silly. My unit commissioner has four rows of knots. I do feel like I should keep looking for the stars on his collar. To answer the poll, I qualify for three knots currently, but I've been lazy and haven't filled out the paperwork for them. In another year, I qualify for a fourth, and they are all knots for adult leadership (I did 4-H as a youth, not scouts).

"Should freedom only apply to those ideas that we like? This is now putting us (or the government) in the place of judging other peoples ideas (which you seem to dislike so much, but only when someone judges yours)." Excuse me? I don't know how you get from my thinking that everyone should be treated equally to me disliking other people's ideas or wanting to judge other people's ideas. Their ideas are their own. It's their actions I'm concerned with, at least when they affect me and mine. Judge my ideas all you want. However, I think "respecting others" and having obvious disdain for and being dismissive of their beliefs are mutually exclusive. "I think it is a persons right to be a bigot. They should have the right to speak their mind so and dispose of property in accordance with their convictions. As long as they do not physically harm anyone else, it is not the governments job to get involved." Absolutely, everyone has a right to believe the most horrific, bigoted things that they want. But when they act on those beliefs to the detriment of others, that's when I have a problem with them. You say that you don't want the government to force ideas like equality down your throat. Well, while I respect the beliefs of other religions and the right of others to let those beliefs guide their lives, I don't want them to use their beliefs to tell how I should live my life. I have my own set of beliefs that are my guiding principles, thanks. So what exactly constitutes physical harm? Does it not cause someone physical harm if they have to live in the street because they are denied housing due to their religion? Isn't it physical harm if someone loses all that they have because they are turned away from employment because of their religion? I guess we should get rid of all those pesky laws about theft, because after all, taking someone's possessions doesn't cause physical harm, right? And all those laws about who can marry who, why do we have those if marrying whoever you want doesn't cause any physical harm (assuming it is consentual)? The government gets involved for more than just physical harm.

" Dan, it seems you have a vastly different conception of freedom than I do. It seems you want the iron hand of government to force equality down the throats of Americans. I don't think that is the dream of America." No, I just want to government to ensure "liberty and justice for all". Hmmm. Where have I heard that before? As an independent with libertarian leanings, I also believe that the government has too much of a hand in our lives. But until those laws are repealed, I expect the government to follow as well as enforce them. What I see as truly a shame is that there is a need for these laws at all because we, as a society, can't seem to treat each other decently without them. Longhaul, received your PM. Interesting points, and I am pondering them. Thanks.

"The only right to be "treated equally" would stem from the Fourteenth Amendment stating in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice it applies only to the states and not the federal government. Also, keep in mind the intent of the Amendment. Even you must admit its intent was not to allow Wicca or any other religious sect the right to have its holidays recognized or remove such rights from Christians in any way." I'm not going to quibble the interpretation of the Constitution, because I'm not a Contitutional lawyer, and I didn't say that the right to be treated equally was one listed in the Constitution. The idea that all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment is a founding principle of this country, or do you disagree with that, as well? If not, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That pretty much says people have to be treated equally based on their religion (and a bunch of other things) at least by the government and places of public accommodation. And that's a federal law. "I am not familiar with all the cases of "persecution" you bring up." They are all cases that have been in the news, and fairly recently. So since you put the term in parentheses, does that mean that you don't consider them to be instances of persecution? All righty then. How very. "I would say that it is wrong for courts to consider taking away children." Why not? Isn't raising them in such an evil and immoral way an endangerment to their welfare? "I would say an employer should have the right to fire someone for wearing religious symbols they deem inappropriate. Maybe some would not be a large fan of doing business with someone of an unorthodox religion. It is not my decision. It doesn't affect my pocketbook. Thats free market capitalism." Ah, so can an employer also fire someone for having a skin color that they consider inappropriate? It's free market capitalism, right? Unfortunately, for such an employer, religion is one of the things covered by the EEOC. But the employer in question did not fire Christian employees for wearing crosses that were of the same size and visibility as the pentacle in question. It's against the law to treat employees differently based on their religion. But it happens anyway. "I think if I don't want to sell my house to someone or rent an apartment to them for any reason, I should be able to. It is my property." Again, federal fair housing law says different. Landlords are not supposed to be allowed to discriminate based on religion. But it happens anyway. "I hope prominent religious leaders speak out against those who they believe are in sin. What else are our religous leaders for?" How about being concerned about what their own religious adherrants are doing and not to be making hate-filled speeches towards others? Just an idea. "I suppose the President can say Wicca is not a valid religion. The President is allowed to make personal statements as well." He can as a private citizen, but not as the President, who is part of the government. Perhaps he should have a talk with the IRS then, who keeps granting Wiccan (and Pagan) groups tax-exempt status as religious organizations. "Maybe they shouldn't be in the military. I don't know. Maybe a Don't Ask Don't Tell type of policy is in order. The government does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military due to their life of sin and impact on combat effectiveness. I suppose if those in the military think Wicca is wrong as well, they should not let those who practice it in. It seems only right." Except remember that Civil Rights Act that I mentioned above? It covers the military, as well. And while sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, religion is. Also, can you explain why is Wiccan soldiers any worse for the military than soldiers of any other religion that isn't the "right one"? "So I do not consider individuals exercising their own economic rights is persecution. Nor public or religious figures speaking on their personal beliefs. I do not consider the military making decisions on who to allow in based on morality and combat effectiveness persecution. The military is not a place for social experimentation." Frankly, that's a load of rationalizations to try to justify discrimination and prejudice. Persecution is defined as "persistent mistreatment of an individual/group by another group". It doesn't specify whether those doing the mistreating are breaking the law when they do it. If these same incidents were applied to Christians in another country, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't be crying persecution. And if not, again, I can only reiterate that I thank all my Gods that you are not in a position to dictate the treatment of me and mine. Since none of my examples meet your criteria, I ask again, could you give a specific example of what you would consider "persecution"?

"Please point out the 'right' which someone is being denied. Nobody has a right to have schools close on any day they deem is a religous holiday for their faith." The right being denied is the right to be treated equally. Christians are given special treatment, including having schools closed for their religious holidays. No other faiths are given that consideration. "Wiccan are not being persecuted." Really? Well, I guess that depends on what you consider persecution. When Wiccan parents are taken to courts and told that they are not allowed to raise their children in their religion or they will be taken away, I would consider that to be persecution. When Wiccans are fired from jobs for wearing symbols of their religion, I would consider that persecution. When Wiccans are denied housing because of their religion, I would consider that persecution. When prominant religious leaders say that bad things happen in this country because of "pagan beliefs", I consider that persecution. When the president of the United States says that Wicca is not a valid religion, and that Wiccans should be kicked out or barred from serving in the military, I consider that persecution. What exactly has to happen for you to consider the discrimination that takes place everyday against religious minorities to be persecution? (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

" I can explain the discrepancy. It is called democracy. These rules are not made in a vacuum. They are made by school boards and elected legislatures which were elected by the people. The majority of people in the majority of places in this country are Christian, which is why those beliefs are respected." So minority beliefs don't deserve respect? How about those of us in the minority who respect those (Christian) beliefs because we think it is the right thing to do, not because they are in the majority? "If the Wiccan (or any religion) are a majority in any town and wish to elect a school board which would give off for those holidays and not Christian ones, I believe it is their right. I would not sue in court to overturn the democratic process of the majority of my fellow citizens." Hmm, I don't recall anything in the DoI about those rights being inalienable only for those in the majority. Can you show me the part in the Constitution that says that rights don't apply to any minority? "It is easy to believe in the democratic process when the decisions suit you. It is much harder when they don't." Yeah, and some people find it hard to do what's right when they are not being forced to. Having the moral high ground means taking care of those without power (i.e. in the minority) because you think it's the right thing to do.

"The real question is: Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster a higher power consistent with the DRP. If the Pastafarian Movement applied for an emblem should we grant it? They do have a deity? I say no." Their deity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'd love to see the design of their religious emblem, if it is anything like the FSM emblem I've seen on the back of some cars. (Note to self, gotta get me one of those) TheScout, can you please name for me the deity worshipped by Buddists (who have an approved emblem)? By Scientologists (who are an approved CO)? By Zoroastrians (who have an approved emblem)? By followers of Meher Baba (who have an approved emblem)? By Wiccans? (Hint, only three of those religions have a central deity/deities. Do you know which ones they are?)

"Does the US government clearly recognize the Wicca? I know there is currently a large dispute over a soldier who they are not allowing to put a Wicca symbol on his tombstone in a federal cemetary. I also wouldn't say they have had the same privileges. When was the last time there was a Wicca Senate or House chaplain as an example?" Just for clarity of terms, Wicca (not "the" Wicca) is the name of the religious path. Wiccan is the adjectival form, so it would be a Wiccan symbol or a Wiccan chaplain. Wicca is recognized by the US government as a religion, for legal purposes. Wiccan groups have been granted tax excempt status and other perks given to other religious groups. The VA is currently denying the family of a Wiccan soldier who was killed in action to ability to put a pentagram on his headstone, yes. But the military is very inconsistent in their treatment of religion as well. They allow soldiers to declare "Wicca" as their religion, and it can be noted as such on their dog tags (or so I am told by an ex-Navy Wiccan I know). They allow Wiccan "chaplains". But they do certainly give special treatment to Christians, as well.

"Dan I was of the understanding (I could be wrong) that any child with a religious observance can be excused from school on that day." Any child belonging to a "mainstream" religion can generally be excused for a religious observance (i.e. Jewish kids can get off for Yom Kippur, etc.), but they still have to make up any work they missed that day, including any tests. While I have not actually tried to have my sons excused for any of our observances, I do know Pagan families who have been told that their children could NOT be excused from school for their religious observances. Here's another example of the special treatment of Christians in public schools. I notice that school lunches on Fridays during Lent always are "meat free" (i.e. fish). But during Passover, they do not offer a "kosher for Passover" alternative (i.e., no leavened bread). Unless you count the salad (which probably has croutons, so much for that). But how many second graders do you know who voluntarily (or even involuntarily) eat salad? Many, many Jews who do not keep kosher during the rest of the year still feel it is important to keep kosher during Passover, which is only 8 days. Yet, some people still want to claim that Christians are being discriminated against in our schools. Can you explain these discrepancies?

"Dan, who was the response geared toward. I was trying to get out the point that CoG and Satanism/Devil Worshipping have nothing to do with eachother even though a lot of misinformed people think that they do, therfore the stigma." ASM915, my friend, my response was geared toward TheScout in response to remarks which he has since clarified, which I do appreciate. I am very greatful for people who are willing to educate themselves about other religions, such as yourself. On a similar note, I am always, er, amused I guess is the best word, by people who assume that I am not Christian because I have not "heard the Good News", rather than imagine that I *have* heard the Good News and have respectfully said, "no thank you". I am particularly struck by the USNews article that GernBlasten posted a link to in the atheist thread about the ignorance about the Bible of many Americans who profess Christianity. I find it very sad to think that I've studied their holy book more than they have. Personally, I think comparative religion study from a historical perspective should be manditory study in all religious ed classes. After all, how can you know that something is not for you if you don't know what it is? TheScout asks: "Wicca? Satanism? Followers of a hypothetical revived Aztec human sacrafice faith? Devil Worshipers? (I am sure there are some out there) Or what about the People's Temple? (the movement Rev. Jim Jones started which led to the mass suicide/murder by the kool aid in Guyana in the 1970s) I would presume that few of you think the BSA should allow emblems for any of the above or hypothetical groups." I have no problem with the BSA rejecting emblem programs that do not fall in line with the BSA's *official* values. But the BSA has not rejected the Wiccan emblem because of anything specific about the program, but because of a *technicality*. If they have a problem with the CoG curriculum, then they should tell the CoG what specifically they don't like, and give the CoG an opportunity to change the curriculum. But they haven't done that. Instead, they've used a completely arbitrary rule that they made up AFTER CoG applied for recognition to side-step the issue completely. That way, they don't have to actually come out and say that they just don't approve of Wicca, and can maintain the *official* BSA policy that all religions are welcome. It is the pure hypocracy of it that I object to.

"So am I correct to believe you think we should make American kids go to school on Christmas? That doesn't seem to be a good idea." No, you are not correct. I have no problem with kids having off for Christmas, but if they are not Christian, they should be able to have off for their own religious holidays, too. Excused, without having to make up whatever work was done that day. It would be nice if schools were actually closed for other holidays like they are for the Christian ones, but I realize that would seriously cut into school time, and is unrealistic. What I would like is for my kids not to have off for minor Christian holidays, like Good Friday. And I'd also like for Christians, who do represent an obvious majority in the country, to stop crying victim of discrimination when other minority religions try to ask for equal treatment. I've heard a rumor that our council is planning to hold their Fall camporee on Yom Kippur, because no one on the committee planning it is Jewish, so obviously, it won't inconvenience ANYONE to hold it then. This year, Yom Kippur falls as the same time as the autumnal equinox, one of my holy days. So that's at least two religions whose holy days they are disregarding. Do you think that is right?

"Menorahs are left alone while all Christian symbols must be removed. Christians want nothing more than a level playing field" Ed, I agree that a level playing field is best. In my experience, though, it is not the Christians who are not given a level playing field, but everyone else. See a lot of Passover displays on municipal property this time of year? Is your town holding a matza-ball hunt as well as an Easter egg hunt? Did they have an Ostara display back on March 21st? Our schools are closed today for Good Friday. But my kids had to go to school on Ostara. They didn't get off for the first night of Passover. They get off for Christmas, but not for Yule or Hannukah. Does that sound like a level playing field to you?

Gonzo, you originally said "I heard on Paul Harvey yesterday that 91 % of the US says they are Christian" But then you said: "He said that according to Newsweek Magazine, 91% of Amercian adults believe in God" So which is it, 91% is Christian, or 91% believes in God. You do see that the two are not the same thing, I hope? I would actually believe that in a random poll conducted by a non-academic study that they might get 91% who believe in God, and 87% who actually profess SOME religion. According to the article Merlyn linked to, the Christians only made up 82%. That's a little higher than ARIS's 77% in 2001, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was within the margin of error (which is usually at least 5% with these things). Hmmm. Think I find the ARIS data more convincing. Being an actual study, and not just a poll. The poll even admits that they may have gotten an artifically low result for "atheist" because of the stigma attached to that word. Imagine, someone doesn't want to identify themselves as atheist because they think they will be treated differently a result....

"Here's a site to mess with your collective minds and stretch the idea of inclusiveness... it seems there are many, many "true faiths". www.religioustolerance.org" Thank you, SSScout, I forgot that one. Excellent site! Lots of information presented in an educational, unbiased fashion. Their section on Paganism is excellent.

"I just went to www.paulharvey.com and listened to the archive of Tuesday's broadcast. He said that according to Newsweek Magazine, 91% of Amercian adults believe in God, atheists, however noisy, are just 3% of us. If I'm not mistaken, you would say that Newsweek magazine is a reliable source. But, to be sure, i looked it up, it's in the March 30, 2007, Newsweek. I guess your "reliable" polling data isn't reliable, Me thinks you're wrong." So Newsweek is more reliable than a peer reviewed, academic study (ARIS). Riiiiight. Obviously you've never worked in journalism. "I wouldn't mind if a pentagram wee put up, as long as it's display is proportional to the number of wiccans in town. So, Christmas get 3 weeks, pentagram gets 10 minutes. It's only fair on a per capita basis." Well,that's about how long it would probably last before is was vandalized anyway. Does the menorah get it's 8 hours, too? (Since Jews are 1.3%) Oh wait, but Hannukah lasts 8 nights, not 8 hours. Uh oh. "Be glad you live here, in the "good ol' US of A" as you put it. There is no execution or murder because you believe differently. Believe on!" Nope, no execution here. Murder? Well, motivations for hate-crimes can be notoriously hard to prove. But we got plenty of discrimination! "If it's OK for schools to discriminate by having all-girl teams, they are dicriminating based on gender, how about the senior ciizen who want to use the tax payer funded community center for indoor walking. The age discrimination isnt it? You can't have it both ways." Yes, it has been said before, but obviously bears repeating, there are some types of discrimination that are legal, even by public schools. If you want to know why that discrimination is legal, ask a lawyer. I believe that is Merlyn's calling, not mine. If anyone wants to have it both ways, it is the BSA. They want to have their status as a private religious organization so that they can LEGALLY discriminate, but then they cry foul when they are kept to the same standards as other private religious organizations. Poof, do they disappear, too?

TheScout, Ah, now I understand that you have no idea what Wicca is about, and have listened to the propaganda about us spread by those who wish to label us something we are not. I would suggest you educate yourself about our beliefs before you go labeling us "Devil Worshipers" and compare us to religions that engaged in human (or any living thing) sacrifice. For the record, we do neither. Here is a link to get you started: http://www.ecauldron.com/newpagan.php You will find information about many pagan religions there (none of which worship the devil, btw, not even Satanism). It also contains links to information about specific pagan religions, including Wicca. The Covenant of the Goddess site where the links at the beginning of this thread reference also has good information. Google is also your friend, although for unbiased information, you might want to stay away from sites where people who don't actually practice paganism nevertheless try to tell you what paganism is all about. I'm by no means trying to convert you, but please know what you are talking about before making prejudiced statements based in ignorance. Ignorance is a sad state. And willful ignorance is an ugly thing.

"But one thing I will tell you for sure is the witches or Wiccan or whatever you wish to call them do not belong in scouting." Well, then, I'll just thank all my Gods that you are not the one who gets to decide to kick me and my kids out of scouting.

"I heard on Paul Harvey yesterday that 91 % of the US says they are Christian, only 3% said they are atheist. So, please don't waste my time over a small percentage of the 3% trying to get into BSA. 3 percent? C'mon, move onto something else." Hmm, this contradicts what I have seen from the reliable polling data. In 2001, the American Religious Identification Survey showed Christians to make up about 77% of the population (down from 86% in 1990, so if we extrapolate a similar decline to 2007, they would be down to about 73% by now, but that is purely an estimate). According to the same survey, no religion (atheist, agnostics, humanists, etc) made up about 14% of the population in 2001. Again, if we extrapolate from the 1990 figure of 8% and assume steady increase, that would be about 17% in 2007, but that's only an estimate). For reference, those who professed to follow Judaism made up 1.3% in 2001. What's the fastest growing religion in the US, based on percentages, not on raw numbers? Wicca! http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf Methinks Paul Harvey was just pulling numbers out of thin air....

"Or a Judeo-Christian one." Why stop there? Why not kick out the Jews, too? After all, aren't they still following the wrong religion? Why is their "wrong" religion more acceptable than any of the other "wrong" alternatives?

Gonzo, "How about all of the schools that can't charter BSA units. That's about 9,000 examples. I'm sure if you had a groupd of atheists who want to use a school gym or meeting room, you could probably get it." Actually, the other pack in my town uses the school gym for their meetings without any problem whatsoever (they are chartered by a local church). We had our Pinewood Derby last month in the school cafeteria. Again, we've never been denied access to school grounds on off-school hours for meetings, events, even recruiting. "How about towns and cities being sued over Christmas trees, the media calling them Holiday Trees so atheists (and other religious minorities) don't get upset." Actually, I think it's quite nice of towns to put up all those Yule trees. Would you feel the same way if they put a big pentagram out on the front lawn of city hall? "There are countries where christian are murdered for being Christians." And there are countries where Pagans are murdered for being Pagans. And countries where gays are murdered for being gay. And I mean executed by the government, not just murdered in hate-crimes by individual bigots (because that happens right here in the good ol' U S of A). So what's your point? "We the people have the right to peacably assemble. That includes YOU." Oh, so is it ok with you if my coven holds their May Day ritual at your son's school? On your town hall steps? "It will probably be a matter of time before atheism is recognized as a religion." If so, it will only be over the objection of every athiest I know. "Go ask your local school if your group can meet at the school and let us know what they said. My hope is that because we can't meet there NOW, you can't meet there either. I wish we could meet there." But you (if you mean scout units) can meet there (see beginning of post). Somehow though, I think my coven would still have trouble getting the cafe for a ritual, but maybe I'm wrong. So far, we've been quite content to use the basement of the UU church (if we have to be indoors at all). "the difference between a school "owning and operating" a BSA unit is that the school principal isn't the scoutmaster or cubmaster, but rather allows the unit to meet there and approves of unit leadership." Yes, and if they are required by the BSA to disapprove leaders who are atheists or gay, or to reject the membership applications of boys who are atheists or gay, then they would be breaking the law. THAT is the difference. Meet there all you want. Just don't ask them to enforce the discriminatory policies of the BSA.

I am also a scientist and a believer, and I see no conflict between the two. Science is the tool which the Creator has give us to try to understand the magnificence of the universe around us. To reject science is to reject one of the Creator's gifts. To reject the Creator in favor of science leaves far too many questions that cannot be answered without faith. Excellent article, Beaver, thanks for posting it.

Packsaddle, thank you for your kind words. It is people like you and other individuals I've encountered in scouting (particulary in my local units) who go beyond "tolerance" to true acceptance of the differences of others that make me continue to believe in the principles that scouting is supposed to be based on, even when the national organization doesn't follow those principles in their own actions.