eisely Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Hey gang...Join this thread in offering a prayer for Merlyn Leroy. May the joy of the season get under his skin and help him to see the folly of trying to undo the good that others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Eisely, that's a pretty mean-spirited Christmas Eve message, isn't it? I realize you couched it in "positive" terms by offering it as a "prayer", but the phrase "the folly of trying to undo the good that others do," shows your true intent. That would be the case even if I agreed with you that Merlyn is trying to undo the good that anybody else does, which I don't. If I did a numerical analysis of his posts, I suspect that about 30-40 percent would be statements of issues already decided by the Supreme Court, and his statements in that regard are, to my knowledge, always correct -- though several members of this forum choose not to accept what the Supreme Court has decided, and has repeatedly confirmed, through both "conservative" and "liberal" regimes. Another 30-40 percent of Merlyn's posts are statements of what he believes courts will decide in the future. About half the time I think Merlyn is engaging in wishful thinking in these posts. And on the balance of his posts, I agree sometimes and disagree sometimes. I probably agree with him more often than I agree with some of the other regular posters in the "Issues and Politics" forum. So Eisely, you can include me in your backhanded "prayer" as well, if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 NJCS - yeah, that's kind of what I thot at 1st, but "under one's skin" isn't necessarily negative, and offering up a prayer (however misguided it may seem :-) FOR ENLIGHTENMENT (however narrowly defined) is probably meant as a kindness. so the prayer may not have been meant MEANly... still, the characterization of ML as trying to undo good - I think - is off base. From ML's own perspective, there has to be a sense of trying to prevent wrong. yes - it's a different kind of wrong than many here would accept as such, but personally, I think that's what MS is after. now, that said in an attempt to put all parties in the best possible light, and share benefit of doubt, I also suggest that when Jesus spoke of whom might first cast stones, that words - as well - are stones, and have the same requirements for casting. just a thot, y'all. include yourself in prayers for betterment... I do each day. For me, I mean :-) Happy Kwanzaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Oh brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 I know, Rooster, that's what I thought when I saw Eisely's post. I'm glad you agree with me for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted December 27, 2002 Share Posted December 27, 2002 NJ, Not to burst your bubble, but I wasn't trying to imply agreement with your position. I was simply shaking my head at the futility of the attempted gesture. As to how sincere eisely was or is, judging by his previous posts, I have to think he was inspired by goodwill, not mean-spiritedness. And if it was the latter, his prayer could hardly pack much sting, particularly when you consider Merlyns disdain for religion. I think its safe to say if it had any effect, it was for the positive. (This message has been edited by Rooster7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 You'll have to point out the "good" in a youth program that has as a central tenet that only theists can be "the best kinds of citizens" (and it's particularly egregious when the government unlawfully charters such discriminatory units). Any good done by a program that promotes such discrimination is completely undercut by it, much as a "character building youth program" that admits all religions (except those Jews over there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le Voyageur Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 ML I'm in agreement with you on this one, too many right wing Christian fundies are pushing way to hard to make this organization a monotheocratic movement based on their narrow percepts. There is room for all, morals are found in every culture, and in every belief system. BSA's consistance refusal to emerge from a past that tramples First Admendment rights, and a Government that turns a blind eye to these abuses sends the wrong and a mixed message that discrimination is okay when done in the name of the Almighty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Legalism in any form is harmful. Merlyns legalism & right wing Christian legalism is harmful. There needs to be a middle somewhere we can all agree on! We were all made by the same Creator! eisley, Great prayer. A little cutting but great none the less! A joyous New Year to all! On last question to Merlyn & the like, Do you celebrate Christmas? A simple yes or no please. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Perhaps you just view "belief in God" as a religion, which helps one become a better person. So it seems, because inevitably, Merlyn and others point out that they have good morals despite not having such a belief. I venture to say that BSA and most others believe in God because he is real and deserves our reverence. We don't believe in Him so that we may obtain good character (although, He certainly could help us in this area). We believe in Him, because He deserves to be honored and worshiped. Those who refuse to honor Him do not understand the value, nor should they be members of BSA. As for first amendment rights, I suggest you read the whole Constitution. It is BSA who is being victimized by those who do not understand or believe in its principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 As long as everyone seems to be in agreement that public dollars should not fund a private organization, and recognizes that it just ain't right to allocate gay or atheist taxes to support a private group that excludes them - well, I think we're all in agreement. Cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le Voyageur Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Rooster, Reading the Consitution in it's entire is one thing. Letting lawyers who are motivated by money to interpet the Consitution and shoe horning it to fit the needs of their masters is a matter altogether different..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 LV: Reading the Consitution in it's entire is one thing. Letting lawyers who are motivated by money to interpet the Consitution and shoe horning it to fit the needs of their masters is a matter altogether different..... KWC: LV, I couldn't agree more! And those who are opposed to religion have elevated this practice to a fine art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Um - there IS a difference between being against relgion, and being against the use of public tax dollars to either promote certain religions or celebrate the selected observances of only a few religions. Just as there IS a difference between defining the BSA as a strictly Christian - or even monotheist - group, rather than as a faith-based but otherwise religiously open group. Along with the right of free association and NOT being a public accommodation comes freedom from public support. To demand access to public funding in any form is to re-beg the question of public accommodation. Nopw, THAT'S a slippery road from the right of assocation perspective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now