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.

" "You claimed that no local people were complaining" Try this, go get a dictionary and then go back and re-read the entire thread, looking up each word as you go along. " Are you now claiming that you didn't say that? You said: "The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." You clearly stated that no one except outsiders were complaining. Were you using "outsider" in sonething other than a geographical sense? Perhaps people who disagree with you are outsiders, regardless of where they live? Or are you just a troll?

FOG "It has nothing to do with anything that I said." You claimed that no local people were complaining. How does the fact that local people were complaining have nothing to do with the claim that no local people were complaining? This is just bizarre. " 'Rules' for debating are for weenies who can't get dates. " Hmm, that sounds like a rule to me. Here's another rule: people who post personal insults in lieu of actual arguments generally do so because they dont have any valid point to make. whitewater: The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality. Seeing as how the BSA wants to promote their morality using public funds, that must be who youre talking about. The government can't make an end-run around the First Amendment by establishing religious organizations instead of a religion. It's unconstitutional for the government to sponsor the Methodist Church. It also is unconstitutional for the government to support the Mormon Church. It does not suddenly become constitutional if the Methodist Church and the Mormon Church get together and form a common organization that then takes government support. The Supreme has held that the government is prohibited from supported religion, not merely A religion. Also, what is at issue is not whether religious organizations can use public land, but whether they can have preferential treatment. Finally, even if these lies are BSAs perspective, theyre still lies. How can you not see them as lies? They are deliberate falsehoods. evmori : Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Freedom OF religion not FROM religion", and I dont see how you can still insist that it does. Yes, it says freedom, it says of, and it says religion, but it doesnt say freedom of religion. It also says ed is a criminal. Here is my point once again, since you seem to still not have gotten it yet: The exact phrase "freedom of religion" does not appear in the constitution. You are arguing for that on the basis that it is IMPLIED. Well, "freedom from religion" is just as implied as "freedom of religion". I have asked you several times to explain how the decision is in error, and you simply keep asking for an explanation for why the lease is unconstitutional. The decision explains why it is unconstitutional. How about you actually read the decision and tell me whats wrong with it?

FOG: And your explanation for how my explanation is in error is absent completely. You claimed "no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." But the ACLU are not outsiders (they have a SD branch), and there people who filed this suit are San Diegans. You are in error. What is wrong with my explanation? And I see you are now employing the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. evmori: The ACLU's version of the Constitution is based on their interpretation of what was actually written. Chanting over and over again "Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" is not a valid legal argument. If you are so concerned with what was written, you might notice that the phrase "free exercise of religion" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION. That is implied, just as freedom from religion is implied. And frankly, your slogan is incredibly insulting. It's the equivalent of insisting that the fourteenth amendment protects white people from being discriminated against, but not black people. You're basically saying "Rights for us, not for you, now &8%# off". You did not state your accusations as opinions, you stated them as facts. "I'm entitled to my opinions" is not a valid defense of libelous statements. And asking for proof that your "opinion is false shows that you still dont understand the concept of burden of proof. Its your obligation to show that you are correct, not mine to show that you are incorrect. We have the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty because it is impossible to prove innocence, as your failure to prove that you are not a child molester demonstrates. To anyone who understands the rules of debate, you look quite foolish. Finally evmori does not understand how the lease violates the Constitution is not a reversible error. Can you point to anything in the actual ruling that constitutes a reversible error? If the lawyers handling the appeal are anything like you, they will be laughed out of court.

I have another question: those that think that this will be reversed on appeal: what reversible errors do you see?

Something I was wondering about: some articles have said that the boys in question were not allowed into the BSA, one because his parents were atheists, and the other because they were of the same sex. Does the BSA really restrict membership on the basis of the boys' parents? NJCubScouter: but the fact that supporters of the BSA are acting dishonestly IS one of my main points. If someone were writing articles libeling the Scouts, theyd be up in arms about it. But as far as I know, the Scouts have not complained about this article, and have in fact promoted it. So apparently, the Scouts dont care about dishonesty if it doesnt hurt them. If I were a member a group that was being represented by a liar, I would be angry. I would want the organization to do everything it could to disown that person. Yet I havent seen anything like that from Scouts. FOG: What I dont get is why you keep insisting that no locals have complained, when I have already explained that you are in error. Did you not bother reading my post, or do you just not feel the truth should get in the way of an argument? Also, your use of the term outsider had a connotation of more than merely holding local elections. But I think that your last line sums your type up pretty well: you just dont like dealing with opposing viewpoints, and want anyone who bothers you to go away. Packsaddle: trustworthy is pretty much the same thing as honest. Also, the families first sued the city, the BSA was added as a party to the suit, and then city settled with the families. Although the ACLU is providing legal counsel to the families, they are no more an official party to the lawsuit than was Cochran a defendant in OJs murder trial. Evmori: I really don't see the ACLU as a defender of the Constitution unless it is their version of the Constitution. What do you expect? Should the ACLU say Gee, we think that this is violation of the Constitution, but Ed doesnt, so well let it go? Do YOU defend the ACLUs version of the Constitution, or do you defend your own? Prayer is not prohibited in public schools. That is yet another lie promulgated by the right wing. Also, I think you might be a child molester. I dont have any specific examples of you being a child molester, all I have is my theories. But can you prove that youre not a child molester? This is called an argument from ignorance, and is no more valid than your argument that the ACLU coerces people. Making wild accusations and then demanding that the other side disprove them is not a legitimate debating tactic. Bob White: this article will not help anyone understand the BSAs side of the story, because Pulliam doesnt discuss BSAs side or anyone elses side of the story; he discusses a completely different story. The virtue of bravery lies not merely in facing adversity, but in facing adversity for the sake of a good cause. And I dont believe that lying is fulfilling his duty to God. The rest of your post makes even less sense. In fact, its the very sort of dishonest personal attack that I found so objectionable in the original article. Rather than respond to my argument, you simply made up a strawman, then attacked it. Anyone who doesnt unthinkingly support the Scouts must hate them and want them destroyed. I dont have a problem with you defending yourself, as long as you do so honestly. Something that you seem to have a deep antipathy towards. And BTW, its atheist. Uncleguinea: There are no atheists in foxholes. What a lovely saying. Sort of like the only good injun is a dead injun. Or the only thing a nigger is good for is shining my shoes. Odd how some incredibly offensive sayings eventually become socially unacceptable, while others dont.

Thanks, Merlyn. It's good to see that I am not alone in this. There's also the question of how the phrase "at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm" is a gratuitious insult. It seems to me that it is both factual and relevant. Surely the BSA would agree that values which conflict with their views are widely held by the public? I've sent an email to the California Bar Association expressing my concern regarding one of its members deliberately fostering public misunderstanding of the case. I don't know if this is considered an ethics violation, but it should be. I'd also like to say something about the term "outsiders" as used in Fat Old Guy's post. I find that term to be unAmerican and xenophobic. America isn't supposed to be about "insiders" and "outsiders". Someone's concerns shouldn't be dismissed because "they aren't one of us". It also reminds me of a speech I heard. You see, a certain organization wanted to come to Denver and discuss its viewpoint on civil rights. Many people, including the mayor, objected to these "outsiders", considering them to be "invading" for "mean spirted" reasons. Here's part of the response. 10 points to whoever knows what the missing organization name is. "Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of ___ members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. ___ members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment. ... Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America."

"I get the idea that if the Demon Dogs M.C. broke into his house, Deloe would welcome them, offer them coffe and change the sheets before they raped his wife and daughters." Well, I think that pretty much tells me how concern you have for such values as respect and courtesy. I take it you don't feel bound by the rules of decorum? "I suppose that describing Hitler as evil might be discourteous as well but that's what he was." I take it you've never heard of Godwin's Law? "The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." It does not take much study to discover that that is quite wrong. The case I am currently discussing is called Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, not ACLU v. City of San Diego. While the ACLU is providing legal services, they are not a party to this lawsuit. The actual petitionors, Barnes-Wallace et al., are residents of San Diego. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ACLU is acting out of malice rather than sincere principles, and the automatic assumption of this on the part of anyone who disagrees with you is evidence of a serious lack of empathy.

To go through each of the 13 sentence would take quite a while, so let's start with the quote acco40 posted. "Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a 'religious organization,' " Lie. Jones never said that. The BSA does not merely believe in God; one of its major objectives is the promotion of religion and religious values. And on top of that, during the Dale case, the BSA argued that they were exempt from anti-discrimation laws under a religious exemption. So apparently the BSA is a religious organization when it's convenient, and not one when it is inconvenient. "by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore 'advancing religion' and 'religious indoctrination.' " Lie. The decision did NOT declare that Scouts were prohibited from leasing city-owned land. It declared that Scouts could not be given preferential treatment. I disagree with acco40's implied claim that this is within the bounds of editoral license. Editorial license allows a writer to write with a particular bias, to present only one side of a story, and to state opinions. It does not extend to outright lies. An editorial is one's opinion about what actually happened, not one's opinion on something that didn't happen. And yet Pulliam's entire argument is based on a complete misrepresention of the case. His version is so at odds with the facts that this can not be properly be called an editorial opposing the Barnes-Wallace case, but rather one opposing a ruling that never took place. There is a difference between editorial and fiction, and this is clearly fiction.

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that bsalegal.org is run by the Boy Scouts. I therefore find it difficult to understand the hosting of the this article: http://www.bsalegal.org/dailytra-165.htm . For one thing, the article virtually drips of vitriol and contempt for the ACLU. Is calling someone a "Grinch" respectful? Dismissing someone's concerns as "mean-spirited" courteous? Referring to a statement as "Orwellian" friendly? But the greatest violation of all is in the "trustworthy" category. I'd list every single sentence that includes a lie, but that would constitute such a large portion of the article that I don't know if it would fall under fair use. Instead I'll list them by paragraph and sentence: 1. P1S1 2. P2S1 3. P3S2 4. P4S1 5. P4S2 6. P5S1 7. P7S1 8. P7S2 9. P8S1 10. P9S1 11. P9S2 12. P11S1 13. P12S2 That's an average of more than one lie per paragraph, quite a feat considering how short the paragraphs are (and not all of the sentences have only one lie, either). It seems to me that bsalegal.org shouldn't post an article containing one lie, let alone more than 13. Also, Mark Pulliam says he's a Scouting volunteer. Don't the actions of its volunteers reflect on the BSA, and shouldn't it therefore censure such an egregious display of dishonesty?