Is God Dead?

[evmori]

Technically, no you weren't Merlyn. One thing a Cub Scout must do is say the Cub Scout Oath. If you left God out, you didn't say the oath!

 

I never said you were dishonest. You must think you were, though. I was thinking more on the line of hypocrite. And you assumed wrong!

 

"Public schools can't exclude atheists from youth groups that they "own and operate""

 

Got that in writing? And I don't mean the incorrect interpretation of the 1st Ammendment.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[captainron14]

So Merlyn,

If you want nothing to do with the BSA, why do you frequent this Web Site? This is a Web Site about Scouting. The majority of subscribers are Scouters or people involved in the Scouting program. Your participation on this Web site is a kin to a "Pro Choice" person on a "Pro Life" Web Forum.

Are you on a "Crusade" against the BSA?

 

[Adrianvs]

I still wonder what actions or dispositions to actions that Merlyn feels would justify exempting an individual from the BSA. How does he draw such lines without the charge of "bigotry" that he labels others with. I can make up a name for any group in question and I am wondering what principles Merlyn would use to determine which have "protected" status. We know that criticizing and exluding atheists and/or "homosexuals" falls into the realm of "bad" behavior, so he must not hold ALL actions acceptable. Where are the lines? How does Merlyn draw them?

 

I would give specific examples of actions that Merlyn has no reason to exclude apart from the "bigoted" superstitions that he supposedly rejects, but it shouldn't be necessary and I don't want to scandalize those for whom such things are obvious.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Ed, you don't understand current constitutional law. I am not going to educate you. I will allow you to continue to be unpleasantly surprised by court decisions concerning government BSA charters.

 

Captainron, this is a public forum to discuss such issues; you've got to expect some people to have opposing views.

 

Adrianvs, I'm discussing government support of the BSA, not "bad" behavior. The BSA practices religious discrimination, which means the government has to treat them just as it would treat any other private organization that practices religious discrimination, such as a youth group that admits everyone except Jews. That means no charters from public schools, no charters from the military, no HUD grants to get members, no schoolteachers soliciting their students to join, no rental of public property for $1/year, etc.

[Adrianvs]

"Of course, if this were a story by a Boy Scout slamming gays instead of atheists, it's de rigeur to have them tied to a fence first.

 

Glad you bigots are finally showing your true colors."

 

 

You are talking about "bad" behavior. I want to know where you draw the lines. Are all physical actions beyond criticism? Would you allow those who engage in all physical actions or who have dispositions toward them to becoming members of the BSA? Where do YOU draw the lines, and what principles do you use to draw them? Your mentioning of the US policy towards religious groups is only because of your personal beliefs regarding atheism and "homosexuality." That is what I refer to. I strongly believe that the lines that you draw are just as arbitrary, "bigoted," and "narrow" as those to whom you refer. Attempt to prove me wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To quote The Princess Bride, "Learn to live with disappointment."

[Fat Old Guy]

"Ed, you don't understand current constitutional law. I am not going to educate you"

 

That's good because, unless you've been lying, you aren't qualified to do that. It is interesting that you use the phrase, "current constitutional law" because the pertinent part of the Constitution hasn't changed in . . . what . . . about 200 years and the Constitution is, by definition, the highest law of the land. What the supreme court hands down are not laws but interpretations and those interpretations change with the wind. To understand the law, you have to read what the framers wrote, not what someone writes 200 years later.

 

Now, go away.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

I never asked for nor do I want any type of education from you.

 

By not allowing a public school to charter a BSA unit, isn't that discrimination? Violates the 1st Ammendment regarding the freedom of speech! And freedom to practice religion! Or maybe since the BSA refused to buckle to knee-jerkers like yourself you feel there is a constitutional violation? Too bad! And to use a phrase you kind like to use so frequently, "Be careful what you wish for". You might be a member of the next group some radical morons want to exclude!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

For whatever it's worth, the phrase "constitutional law" does include judicial interpretations of the Constitution, contained in reports of published court opinions. That's somewhat of an oversimplification, because some reported cases cease to be "good law" (when they are overruled by other cases); the precedential value of a case depends on what level of court it comes from (the Supreme Court obviously being the highest, but if there is no Supreme Court decision on the subject, Courts of Appeals decisions are also relevant); and a statement in a case is only authoritative if it was necessary to decide that particular issue in order to decide that particular case -- otherwise it is only "persuasive" (or not.) But the point is you can't ignore case law as a part of "constitutional law" -- or any other body of "law" for that matter.

 

And I do think I'm qualified to say that. Whether anyone accepts it is up to them.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

As a God-fearing, God-loving Christian, I find it difficult not to resent the professor in this "joke".

 

Hey Rooster, welcome back, I've missed you.

 

Rooster, let me ask you, what are your feelings toward the other character in the joke, who commits a violent assault against someone because he doesn't like what the person said? Is it ok that he slugged someone because he thought God would want him to?

[packsaddle]

Ed, regarding the last sentence in your message, I think it is clear that Merlyn WAS and IS a member of such a group. And he is now excluded by those...how did you describe them again?

[evmori]

Radical morons.

 

Did you ever see the movie Farenheit 451? Think of what Merlyn is pushing & then add about 30 years & you have the movie. I don't think I want to be part of that society.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Sturgen]

Oh, so hate-filled wizard:

What you fail to realize is that the BSA does not practice any form of religious discrimination, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, believers in Native religions are all more than welcome, to my understanding agnostics are welcome as well, simple a belief in higher power than ones self. Neither does the BSA actively descriminate against homosexuals by my observations, instead the BSA uses a dont ask dont tell policy, attempting to remain as neutral as they can,

For some reason you seem to have been corrupted by the left and believe in the new constitution, for your benefit I will quote a bit of it for you:

 

------

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

------

 

Now, lets examine the first amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, excuse me for my ignorance, but for arguments sake, if the BSA is a religious organization as you claim, then it is protected by the First Amendment in both its membership and its meeting locations, on or off of federal, state, or local land. Even further since the BSA is not a religious organization, it is covered under the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Being that the most violent BSA activity I have witnesses was a highly energetic good spirited game of double ball, I would say that we fall under a peaceable assembly.

 

If you examine the constitution you will notice that no where does it state anything near what the ignorant term the separation of church and state therefore the issue is not a matter to be resolved by the federal government but by the State or the citizens, per the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Adrianvs]

No, Ed was talking about being excluded from the entire public sector. The groups that you refer to are being excluded from one private organization. The difference is quite significant.

 

 

As to arbitrary distinctions, perhaps I should widen the net of participants. To those who believe that atheists and homosexuals should be accepted members of the BSA: What other "groups" do you feel should be granted membership? Are there any other actions or dispositions toward actions currently deemed unacceptable by the BSA that you consider acceptable? Where do you draw the lines and how do you draw them? If you can't answer, then you have no basis on which to criticize the current policy.

[packsaddle]

Ed, The movie I was only aware of but I did read the book. But I am not clear about what the connection is that you want to make to that story.

 

Adrianvs, I think BSA should be an open program. Let the program be inclusive of anyone who wants to participate, sees the value of it, and wants to contribute. Enrollment would be greater, fewer resources would go to the attorneys (sorry, NJ), and BSA could still have all their sweetheart deals.

But no, BSA decided to exclude certain groups. They argued this right on the basis of being a private discriminatory organization - and won. This gives them the same status as other private discriminatory groups such as the Klan. Your contention that BSA is neutral toward gays is, well, fantastic. I think BSA knew that if they won they risked losing the support and status enjoyed by truly open organizations. In a calculated move they decided it would be worth it to go ahead anyway. Now people are bellyaching about losing the special status they once had. I could perhaps see this differently if BSA had not WON! It's as if we're pouting (after being allowed to eat all the cake) about not having it anymore.