Judge rules for boy in Boy Scouts case

[Bob Russell]

Merlyn, you keep twisting my response. I said: "If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion."

 

You then respond by stating: ". . . the Scouts got special access that other groups didn't get.

 

The BSA should get the same access as other discriminatory groups."

 

First you say special access that other groups don't get, then you say they can have the same access as other discriminatory groups get. This is not the same. I have agreed that if outside groups do not get access, neither do the scouts. But if any outside groups get access (regular, not special) the scouts should get the same regular, not special access as these groups. The same access, not special. (Please don't ignore this point as you continue to do.) And it has nothing to do with whether the groups or scouts restrict their membership. To not allow scouts the SAME access as other outside community groups discriminates against the scouts on account of religion.

 

[Bob Russell]

"It's the BSA's duty to KNOW the laws, and considering that a judge in Michigan found that both the school and the BSA violated the civil rights of an atheist student, they'd better start learning fast."

 

Merlyn, you state this with the typical conviction of a true believer, one who cannot fathom that their are often 2 sides to an issue, and that outcomes are often in doubt. In most legal issues there are many viewpoints, and the result often cannot be predicted. That's why we have lawsuits, courts, lawyers, etc. And as you well know, many cases are determined one way at trial, reversed at the court of appeals level, and changed again at the final appellate level. So to say the the scouts are dishonest for maintaining their position is simplistic and wrong. With respect to the Portland case with the Powells, I am sure that you are aware that the ACLU and the Powells brought a similar case several years ago and lost. Therefore, the schools and the boy scouts were in fact operating under a court ruling in their favor, and the ACLU and the Powells chose to not accept graciously. So please can the dishonest nonsense.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Merlyn, you keep twisting my response."

 

No, I'm telling you my position, which you keep getting wrong.

 

...

"I said: "If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion."

 

You then respond by stating: ". . . the Scouts got special access that other groups didn't get.

 

First you say special access that other groups don't get, then you say they can have the same access as other discriminatory groups get. This is not the same."

 

Both statements are true:

 

1) the BSA gets special access other groups don't get.

 

2) the BSA *should* get the same access as other discriminatory groups.

 

...

"I have agreed that if outside groups do not get access, neither do the scouts. But if any outside groups get access (regular, not special) the scouts should get the same regular, not special access as these groups. ...The same access, not special. (Please don't ignore this point as you continue to do.)"

 

I HAVEN'T ignored it.

 

Since the BSA is a discriminatory group, ANY similar group gets the same access as the BSA, like the KKK's youth group, the Klan Youth Corps.

 

And I will continue to call the BSA dishonest for their actions.

[Bob Russell]

"Both statements are true:

 

1) the BSA gets special access other groups don't get.

 

2) the BSA *should* get the same access as other discriminatory groups."

 

Merlyn, then in your posts you state:

"The BSA should get the same access as other discriminatory groups." So we are not saying the same thing. I say that they get the same access as all outside groups. You know, EQUALITY. You limit to groups you define as discriminatory. If you agree that ALL outside groups, scouts, soccer leagues, little league, etc., are treated the same, then we agree. If you will not treat scouts the same as these other outside groups, you are discriminating againts scouts on account of religious beliefs.

 

You may believe that scouts get special access, and in some communities they may get it. But that is not my position. I insist on equal access for ALL outside groups. All in or all out. Agreed?

[evmori]

Merlyn_LeRoy,

Please explain your comment

 

"And I will continue to call the BSA dishonest for their actions."

 

I don't understand your position.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

 

 

 

 

[andrews]

ML,

 

Yelling "you too!" proves absolutely nothing.

 

And sctmom, you are just living on the fumes of what you learned as a child, as is much of our society.

 

No one has still given me a reason why atheists can believe something is absolutely right or wrong, like honesty. It may sound like a good idea, but without some being outside of our frame of reference who we are responsible to, it can also be a nuisance, and even counterproductive.

 

I may disagree with others on what the absolutes are, but I have a firm basis that there are absolutes. Without some god, nothing is absolute.

 

As my teen daughter would say, "Duh!"

 

Brad

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"So we are not saying the same thing. I say that they get the same access as all outside groups. You know, EQUALITY. You limit to groups you define as discriminatory. If you agree that ALL outside groups, scouts, soccer leagues, little league, etc., are treated the same, then we agree."

 

If you agree that ALL outside groups, like the Klan Youth Corps are treated the same, then we agree.

 

You keep OMITTING other discriminatory groups from YOUR list.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"No one has still given me a reason why atheists can believe something is absolutely right or wrong, like honesty. It may sound like a good idea, but without some being outside of our frame of reference who we are responsible to, it can also be a nuisance, and even counterproductive."

 

What does some "being" have to do with it? You're assuming a connection between absolutes and some being, with no justification. You still haven't given a reason why theists can believe something is absolutely right or wrong, either.

 

If morals are based on a god, anything that god tells you becomes moral, like flying a plane into a building.

 

...

"I may disagree with others on what the absolutes are, but I have a firm basis that there are absolutes. Without some god, nothing is absolute."

 

WITH some god, nothing is absolute, either. Is polygamy moral or not? Gods disagree, so your god-given "absolutes" don't help produce a real answer for human beings.

[Rooster7]

God exists whether anyone on this board wants to acknowledge it or not. That being said, God influences us whether we admit it or not. For the most part (church doctrine aside), we know what is right or wrong inherently. Specifically, there is no doubt in my mind that an adultery, a murder, a pedophile, a drug addict, a thief, an idolater, (pick your sin or vice and insert here), knows he has committed an offense against God. At some point, if we insist on denying his existence, God will remove his influence from us and we will no longer know the difference. I know this to be true for two reasons - 1) The Bible tells me so, and 2) So does my conscience (and I have no doubt that each of us has heard his voice). Atheists can refute the above as they please, and I imagine they can do so whole-heartily because they have been doing it for quite some time. Nevertheless, truth be told, they have heard His voice at some time too.

 

Acts 17:23 - 32

 

23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject."

 

Here's one for you Merlyn -

 

Luke 11:52-54

 

52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.''

53 When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects,

54 plotting against Him to catch Him in something He might say.

 

Andrews is absolutely correct. The fact that any atheist knows right from wrong is just another testament to God's existence. An atheist cannot point to anything external, and if he does, it's completely subjective. God speaks to us all. It's not a question as to whether or not he exists. Or, whether or not someone knows right from wrong. The question is: Who is willing to accept His gift and follow?

 

This brings me back to the question - "Is BSA being dishonest?" Well, since they recognize that God exists, I'd have to say they're not dishonest. Are they purposely ignoring an established law? Despite Merlyn's contention, the jury is still out. There have been many court decisions. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision on this matter that clearly states no public entity can proclaim the existence of God, I believe Merlyn is wrong. The day the Supreme Court declares that God does not exist, or that a public entity cannot attest to the same, I will believe the Court to be wrong.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

You should check into what denominations' religious awards *aren't* recognized by the BSA: Unitarian-Universalists...

UU are liberal Christians, Jews, humanists, agnostics, and Pagans bound together not by dogma, but rather by shared values, social concerns, and interests and by friendship. No definite standard of belief is recognized in the denomination and no doctrinal tests are laid down as a condition of fellowship. Each individual congregation manages, without superior control, all its affairs, calls and discharges its minister, and is the final judge of the religious views expressed in its pulpit. Where exactly is their belief in God if there is no standard of believing anything if you dont feel like it? Im curious Merlin, where does your religious orientation

lie, UU, Wiccan, agnostic,

Atheist, Buddhist,

Hindu?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Where exactly is their belief in God if there is no standard of believing anything if you dont feel like it?"

 

They don't require a belief in god; not all religions do. You can be Jewish (including being accepted as a Jew by other Jews) and be an atheist; you can be a Buddhist and be an atheist, etc.

 

...

"Im curious Merlin, where does your religious orientation

lie, UU, Wiccan, agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu?"

 

I don't have a religion.

[Dedicated Dad]

y don't require a belief in god; not all religions do. You can be Jewish (including being accepted as a Jew by other Jews) and be an atheist; you can be a Buddhist and be an atheist, etc. But the dogma is subjective by parish. I don't have a religion.Then why do you believe in God?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"But the dogma is subjective by parish."

 

It doesn't make sense to use Catholic terminology for very non-Catholic religions. Your statement doesn't even make sense for UUs, Jews, or Buddhists; they don't have dogma or parishes.

 

...

"Then why do you believe in God?"

 

I don't. Where'd you get the idea I did?

[Bob Russell]

"You keep OMITTING other discriminatory groups from YOUR list."

 

Merlyn, I do not omit any groups, as I state that ALL groups should have equal access. ALL does mean ALL, and I do not need to name each group. If a jr. Klan group wants access, we may be forced to accept that. I do believe that schools have the right to restrict disruptive groups and expressions, and depending on the facts, the jr. Klan may qualify. If not, that is the price we pay for free speech. As you know, the ACLU defended the Nazi's right to march in Skokie. As despicable as the Nazis are, as are their ideas, free speech must triumph. Better to let the marketplace of ideas sort out the good from the bad.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Merlyn, I do not omit any groups, as I state that ALL groups should have equal access. ALL does mean ALL, and I do not need to name each group. If a jr. Klan group wants access, we may be forced to accept that."

 

THIS is why I keep bringing it up; you keep hedging. "May" should be "will", if ALL means ALL.

 

...

"I do believe that schools have the right to restrict disruptive groups and expressions, and depending on the facts, the jr. Klan may qualify."

 

And again, you are trying to hedge your bets and say the KKK might NOT be allowed. I thought you just said ALL means ALL.

 

Of course, any group that IS disruptive can be kicked out, whether they are Boy Scouts or KKK members; and if (as you say) the KKK might be excluded because it's judged to be a "disruptive group or expression", the BSA can be excluded for the same reason.