Deloe

"A person's beliefs are not a choice? Are we pre-programmed? Don't people change their views?" No, beliefs are not a choice. A person's height changes, too, but that's not a choice. I wouldn't say that we are "pre-programmed", but our beliefs are part of who we are, and we can't choose who we are (because what we choose is part of who we are, and if we could choose that, that would be circular). "I'm sorry, but if I feel I'm right about something, I'm going to fight back." You seem to be missing the most important word. I even put in in all caps: "automatically". I asked "[W]hy are they fighting for their 'right' to force these other people to financially support the BSA?" You replied: The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. Can you really not see the absurdity of that statement? The BSA is fighting because they are under attack? That's no reason. "The BSA thinks it is right" is a reason. "The BSA is under attack" is not. Your response implied that it doesn't matter whether the BSA is right or not; as long as there are people who disagree with some aspect of the BSA, the BSA will defend that aspect, simply because there are people that have a problem with it. "There are cases that determined the Boy Scouts were not a religious organization and that will be the grounds for overturning this judges ruling." And yet you are unable to cite any such cases. "Again, that is only relevant if they applied and were turned down" And just what would constitute "applying"? Is there an official "application for City of San Diego to give me free land" form to fill out? There are plenty of atheist organizations in San Diego, and I'm sure that the City of San Diego has a reasonable basis to belive they would like free land. Good enough for me. San Diego isn't going to give out free land to atheist groups, period. Doesn't matter how official their request is. "B--- Sh--" So you have decided that you magically know what the litigants will do, and disagreeing with you is bull **** ? Wow, how open-minded. "It is that simple" No, it's not. You seriously believe that if someone belongs to a religion that calls for human sacrifice, he is exempt from murder laws? Puh-leeze. The question of when free exercise takes precedence over public policy is a hugely complicated issue, and is not "that simple".

Eamonn: Your first post was worded impolitely, and it was followed even ruder posts by other posters. It is no surprise that Merlyn would take offense at these posts. And you conclude that Merlyn is a troll? And I wouldn't characterize my position on faith-based programs as "unsure". I am quite sure these are questionable at best. I did qualify the claim that no non-Christian groups have received any money, because I have not personally verified this, and I am open to the possibility that I have received incorrect information (a quality that I apparently share with very few members of this forum). I think that the fact that we have been repeatedly insulted, and you accuse us of "name calling and misinformation" (unless you were talking to FOG et al., which seems unlikely), shows that there isn't much hope of explaining our position to you. [edited to fix codes](This message has been edited by Deloe)

Bob White: Perhaps you should check out what this site has to say about "celibate": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=celibate "The existence or absence of sexual activity is irrelevant for membership in the BSA." Huh? Surely if someone engages in homosexual activity, that would result in expulsion. And if this is really about "morality", not about bigotry, surely they would kick out fornicators as well. I mean, on what basis would they not allow an avowed homosexual, but allow an avowed fornicator? "The condition is that if you are an avowed atheist or homosexual you cannot hold membership in the BSA." Well, no one can choose whether or not to be a homosexual. So the only thing a homosexual has control over is whether he admits it. So the BSA position is that dishonest homosexual are okay, but an honest homosexual just isn't an "appropriate role model"? Eamonn: Did you wake up one day and decide you were attracted to members of the opposite sex? It's something that happens gradually. As for "corroborate": you said "never seen any medical evidence that collaborates this." The word "corroborates" makes more sense than "collaborate" in that sentence. Zahnada: The idea of looking for scientific evidence as to whether homosexuality is a choice, to me, is like looking for scientific evidence that squares can have five sides. Its logically impossible. If someone chooses to have sex with people of the same sex, they must want to do so. And if they want to have sex with members of the same sex, they must already be homosexual. There may be, very rarely, people who choose to CLAIM that they are homosexual, but homosexual means having sex with members of the same sex because one wants to, not for acceptance or significance, or any other reason. If I offered you a million dollars to have sex with a member of your sex, and you accepted, would that make you a homosexual? Also, the question of whether it is innate or a choice is not a completely valid dichotomy. It may be that homosexuality is due to environmental effects, but that doesnt mean its a choice. After all, influenza isnt innate, but it isnt a choice either. So even if you show that homosexuality isn't innate, that doesn't mean it's a choice.

Herms, I can't understand how anyone can say either is a choice. We can only choose our actions. We cannot choose our beliefs, or our desires. You might as well claim that being short is a choice. Eamonn: I'm not sure what you mean by "born homosexual". Do you mean "come out the womb sexually atracted to the same sex"? Then no. Do you mean "inherently different from heterosexuals"? I think that is self-evident. Have you ever been tempted to be homosexual? Homosexuals have. So unless you have, that's a difference between you and them. I don't understand how anyone can think homosexuality is a choice. Is heterosexuality a choice? PS: I believe the word you're looking for is "corroborates". As for "gay lifestyle", is that all the Scouts object to? If a celibate homosexual wanted to be involved in scouting, would he be welcomed?

I'd ask FOG whether he considers calling atheists liars to be an insult, but he'd probably just duck the question like usual. Laurie: The fact is, the BSA is dominated by Christians. While there are non-Christians, there a quite small percentage.

Trail Pounder, I've got some news for you: EVERYONE is born an atheist! It's the natural state of humanity. There are also 11 year old homosexuals, and neither is a choice.

whitewater: I haven't seen Merlyn say the sort of things you claim. But I haven't read every thread. So let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Merlyn hates the BSA and wants it to be destroyed. So what? FOG did not direct his attacks to Merlyn specifically, he directed them to atheists in general. If FOG is justified in judging all atheists based on Merlyn, then Merlyn is justified in judging all Scouts based on FOG. Big_Dog: I think that what you missed is that Eamonn started a thread ASKING atheists for their views. If someone on a planned parenthood forum asked what Pro-Life and Anti-Choice activists think, I don't see anything wrong with you responding. I speak of Pro-Life and Anti-Choice because there are some people who are opposed to Planned Parenthood because they don't think it should receive public funding (these people are Pro-Life), but I think most of them want to eliminate Planned Parenthood completely (these people are Anti-Choice). I don't think that most atheists deny BSA's right to exist, merely its right to receive public funds. I did not come here to convince people to abandon the BSA. My stimulus was the dishonest coverage of the Fiesta Island suit. This isn't about making people agree with me; I just want people who disagree with me to do so on the basis of facts, rather than distortions of truth. I support the right of the BSA to advocate its interests, I just think that they should do so with the truth, not with lies. If Planned Parenthood were to so completely misrepresent the facts in a suit, I would oppose that as well (probably more so, since people like you seem to associate me with them, and I wouldn't want to be associated with liars). And not believing in God makes it more important, for I cannot comfort myself by saying "Well, at least God knows the truth". I don't think that there is anything standing between evil and the innocent except humans, which makes my actions all the more important.

FOG: Again Dee-low shows how little he know of the real world. Quite often the women's rest room has sofas and comfy chairs and carpeting. Men's room's have ceramic fixtures. Hmm, I wonder where your knowledge of womens bathrooms come from. I rather doubt that is the norm, but I dont need to know enough to investigate myself. However, a more important measure would be time spent waiting in line for use of the bathroom, and here women are the clear losers. Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being? No. Whitewater Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit? No, Im suggesting that its not proper to AUTOMATICALLY fight a suit, regardless of the subject of the suit. If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease? Because they were evaluating it on unconstitutional bases. And what does their resistance to the ruling have to do with it? They must think theres a significant chance that they wont get the lease back in competitive bidding. Do you have an example of one? I know of quite a few atheist groups that are not receiving rent-free leases from the City of San Diego. Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over? Yes. Religious organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs. Its not quite that simple.

While I dont endorse everything that Merlyn has said, and certainly not how he said it, his basic point is sound. Bob White, you made a claim which Merlyn disputed. Instead of attempting a substantial rebuttal, you defended your claim on the basis that you dont know for certain that it is false. I mean, come on. THATS your defense? Your claim MIGHT be true? On that basis, I would be completely justified in calling you a murderer. I mean, I dont know for sure that you arent. When you say that the BSA does not take public money, the natural interpretation is I know that the BSA does not take public money, not I dont know that the BSA does not take public money, but I dont know they do, so Im going to keep on claiming that they dont until its been proven to my satisfaction otherwise. You can split hairs all you want as to whether this was, technically, lying, but the fact is that you made a statement which gave a false impression. If you wish to express you doubt as to the BSAs receipt of public funds, the honest way would be to say I dont think the BSA receives public money, not to declare as a certainty that they dont. You cant even present a valid reason to doubt Merlyns claim, just your own doubt. You should take a long, hard look at what you craftsmen have wrought. You feel free to say anything you want as long you dont know for certain its false. You refer to opposing points of views as a hissy fit, and the holders of those views jackasses. When someone responds to a claim YOU made, in response to the originator of the thread, you accuse of him of hijacking the thread. Meanwhile, FOG implies that all atheists are liars, along with many other incredibly rude responses. These are the values you learn in the Scouts?

Perhaps you could explain how not wanting to have one's tax money support an organization constitutes "having it in" for that organization. And from what I've heard, in these "faith-based initiatives", "faith" exclusively refers to "Christian". And Bush has said that he will look FIRST to faith-based initiatives. So, yes, I do oppose this as well.

And once again FOG shows that he's not interested in having a mature discussion. Making lame puns out of other people's names, blaming the victim (apparently if someone is offended, it's because they are "looking" for offense), acttacking me for imaginary offenses (making up hypothetical food procurement situations, and telling me what I would do), and making fun of other people's misery. That's what passes for argument in FOG-land.

FOG: Separate but equal? Didn't work for education or bathrooms, did it? Oh, I guess that's okay because it discriminates against men. Men are not being discriminated against; if anything, its the women that are. But I dont think theres much chance of discussing this rationally with you. You still refuse to tell me whats wrong with my explanation. Why couldn't I join the French club? I don't speak French. Duh! And didnt you CHOOSE not to learn French? Whitewater: The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias. Can you name such a lease? It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization. Do you disagree with the contention that the BSA holds the promotion of religion, and religious values, to be a major goal? The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. Under attack is a rather biased way of looking at it. And they are not fighting merely because they are under attack. Surely you arent saying that the BSA, when sued, automatically will oppose the suit, regardless of the issue? The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement. That claim is belied by their continued resistance to the ruling. If it truly were the citys best use of the land, they would not need to appeal the ruling. They could simply apply for a renewal of the lease on an equal basis with everyone else. That is only relevant if they were turned down Huh? You mean you dont think any atheist group has ever been turned down? The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free. But they dont promote religion. I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups. Unless the same deal were offered to EVERY SINGLE other group, its a special deal. Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return. Either they received market value, or they didnt. One or the other. If they received market value, then putting this lease on the open market will not result in any change. If they didnt receive market value, then it was a special deal. If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious? Do you have a link to the text of that decision? Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause. Can you cite what part of the decision to which you are referring? It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways. Is the judge both claiming that the BSA is a religious organization, and claiming that it isnt?

Seems to me that an incredibly important point is being completely ignored here. Read the first paragraph again: "After his 6-year-old son started attending school in Portland this fall, David Hilton discovered that being a parent these days means sorting through all the papers that get stuffed into children's backpacks at school." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the school probably does not supply its students with backpacks. No, I'm pretty sure that backpack was bought by David Hilton. Which means that he owns it. It's his. He can make whatever rules regarding its use that he wants. If he wants to tell people that he doesn't want BSA fliers stuffed in it, then what right does anyone have to stuff BSA fliers in it? And the whole "only one person is complaining" thing is silly. The morality of an action is not determined by the number of people that it bothers. If 99.999% of the people decide to suspend private property rights to advertise activities, too bad. It's the .001% that matters. I can just imagine a murder defendant using this defense "Your honor, no one really liked this guy. Everyone else wanted him dead, too. So really, the victim's the only one with a problem with it."

I don't understand your title; I don't see that the ACLU has done anything other than offer their opinion of the case to a reporter. I also don't understand the tone of the title; do you approve of courts ignoring the Supreme Court? Seems to me "Enemies of the Constitution strike again" would be a more proper title.

FOG: "Interesting concept, a troll calling me a troll. I've made over 2,000 postings over the past year and you show up to start a rhubarb and call me a troll. If you were a man I'd be offended." I don't see any basis for you to call me a troll, now do I see how 2,000 posts gives you license to engage in the sort of dishonesty you have exhibited in this thread. You claimed that only outsiders were complaining, and you continued to do so even after I had explained that you were in error. You now say that there is something wrong with my explanation, but refuse to say what. Now if I in error, I am open to you explaining how. But you have refused to do so. You just keep saying "You're wrong, you're wrong, read a dictionary" over and over again. This, to me, is the behavior of a troll. Start acting like a mature adult or get out of my thread. Schools discriminate on a regular basis. Honor rolls, letterman clubs, varsity teams. Oddly, I was never offended that I couldn't join the French club. You dont seriously think thats comparable, do you? The discrimination is in activities, not types of people, and it is with regard to areas which the school has a legitimate interest. And why couldnt you join the French club? whitwater: "The BSA also teaches its members to be respectful of other people's views." That's why I started this thread; the BSA *claims* to be respectful of other people's views, but the article in question paints quite a different view. And if the BSA is so respectful of other people's views, why are they fighting for their "right" to force these other people to financially support the BSA? "They believe the BSA is wrong and must be changed. They are intolerant of the BSA's right to believe what they want." That's quite a generalization. There is a broad range of people opposing the BSA, and certainly some of them who do not believe that the BSA has the right to promote discrimination. But not all of them hold that position; some of them just don't think that they should do with public support. Should also recognize that this intolerance is prompted by the BSA's own intolerance. It's not like are trying to stop something that is none of their business. BSA's position has a substantial effect on homosexuals. "I don't see a problem for government support of a non-profit organization as long as other groups receive equal treatment." But thats the whole point, other groups *aren't* receiving equal treatment. This was a special deal specifically made to the BSA. Have you ever heard of an ATHEIST group being offered a rent-free lease? OGE: I dont know if your interpretation of the events is correct; it does seem to suffer from the post hoc fallacy. Theres also a big difference between no litigants and no complaints. But Im not going to defend everything the ACLU does. I myself have some complaints about their activities. What I dont like is the faulty reasoning: This lawsuit is supported [NOT filed] by the ACLU. The ACLU engaged in questionable activities in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT case. Therefore this lawsuit is unjustified. Perhaps the ACLU has, in other cases, gone where no one was complaining. But what does this have to do with this case? In this case, people clearly are complaining. Its also odd that many of the people who complain about the ACLU going where theyre not wanted and imposing their own values dont have a problem with the military doing the same in Iraq. Are there universal principles which everyone is obligated to follow, even if it means discarding local tradition, or does each community have the right to form their own values? Its one or the other; you cant have it both ways.