Here we go again...

[NWScouter]

Merwln and other dont bet the PTAa Or PTOs will charter Scout Units either, 15 years ago in Washington State the PTA state wide group advised its local units to not sponsor Boy Scouts due to liability issues.

My kids school district had a policy that only youth groups sponsored by the PTA could use the buildings. It took quite a bit of jaw boning with the school district administrator and directors to show them that they had given control of their buildings to an outside group (PTA). They saw the light and took back control. At this point the schools do not sponsor us any more than the sports leagues, church groups or YMCAs that use their properties and all have to pay a rent.

One of the main reasons that Learning for Life Corporation was formed was to move those groups, Police, Fire Fighting and in school Learning for Life out of the BSA in order to allow government agencies to sponsor them with out running afoul of antidiscrimination statues.

[Adrianvs]

"Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can."

 

All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies. Do not underestimate the religious nature of belief in the physical world any more than you would for belief in the spiritual world.

 

 

"Well, now you're just lying about my opinion. I'm against public schoolteachers promoting atheism OR theism. However, I suspect your 'pragmatic atheism' refers to teachers teaching science without mentioning your particular god, which isn't the same thing as teaching atheism."

 

If I taught a semester course on Neil Armstrong and failed to mention the moon, one would rightly assume that I was teaching something objective with my omission. Likewise, if I were to teach history and consistently omit the positive contributions of a particular race or gender, there would be a justified outrage. As it stands, however, curricula consistently highlight (or create) only the negative contributions of particular faiths or ideologies in their survey of history. In these situations, the consistently describe the opposing individuals or ideologies in a positive light. If this were done for a particular race (even if it were done only through the use of illustrative examples), it would be said that the teacher was teaching pragmatic racism. This is what I mean by pragmatic atheism, and it does not bother you in the least.

 

 

"Again, you're lying about my opinion. If schools have their facilities open to the public and don't charge fees, anyone can use them on an equal basis."

 

So your only problem with the BSA's relationship to the schools is the nominal "own and operate clause?" So if the schools simply relinquished control over the units and ownership of the property, and stopped paying charter fees, then there would not be a problem? Most interesting. You would still demand that the teachers continue to teach pragmatic atheism, though.. Correct me if I am wrong..

 

 

"What religion do you belong to that presumably allows you to lie about atheists, anyway? I find it very obnoxious when people deliberately lie about what my opinion actually is. If you don't know, ASK. If you just make something up that agrees with your own prejudices instead of finding out what my opinion actually is, I will call you a liar. Got that?"

 

What makes you assume that I belong to a religion? Is it just your habit of attacking religious because they are the least likely to attack you back? Do you bank so heavily on the tolerance and civility of religious that you are shocked and outraged when they respond in kind? Why should anyone give you inherent rights that you will not claim for yourself or anyone else? Why should I respect the "beliefs" or "opinions" of a piece of meat? Why should I assume that you have any grasp of particular truths when you won't admit that Truth exists or is something intelligible to your "mind?"

 

Blood flushes to your cheeks as vessels constrict.. Sodium channels cause action potentials to travel along neurons and bridge synapses with neurotransmitters in what you call a "brain" or even (most presumptuously) a "mind." Why should these things concern me? All meat decays in time. Should I care about how neural nets are mapped in your particular cortex? If you insist on considering yourself nothing more than a cortical formation, then don't demand more respect than such an object deserves.

 

Dismiss me as confrontational. Dismiss me as rude. Just realize this one thing; my atheism is stronger and more complete than yours can ever be. Our little world may be complete, my materialist friend, but it doesn't give you any rights to demand anything, least of all respect.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

adrianvs writes:

All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies.

 

I see you have no examples of public schools refusing membership to any student because of that student's religious views. Sorry, your handwaving arguments aren't real examples.

 

...

If I taught a semester course on Neil Armstrong and failed to mention the moon, one would rightly assume that I was teaching something objective with my omission. Likewise, if I were to teach history and consistently omit the positive contributions of a particular race or gender, there would be a justified outrage. As it stands, however, curricula consistently highlight (or create) only the negative contributions of particular faiths or ideologies in their survey of history. In these situations, the consistently describe the opposing individuals or ideologies in a positive light. If this were done for a particular race (even if it were done only through the use of illustrative examples), it would be said that the teacher was teaching pragmatic racism. This is what I mean by pragmatic atheism, and it does not bother you in the least.

 

So far, you still have no actual examples, nor are your complaints very specific. You also haven't shown how denegrating faiths or ideologies is "teaching pragmatic atheism".

 

So your only problem with the BSA's relationship to the schools is the nominal "own and operate clause?"

 

I wouldn't describe it as "nominal"; the charter partner owns and operates its BSA unit. Public schools can't own & operate youth groups that have religious requirements to join.

 

So if the schools simply relinquished control over the units and ownership of the property, and stopped paying charter fees, then there would not be a problem? Most interesting.

 

The schools would stop being sponsors; the property still belongs to the school and remains with the school. They wouldn't "relinquish control", they would stop chartering the unit -- of course, a private organization that CAN discriminate could sponsor a similar unit. This would be the same situation as any other BSA unit sponsored by a private organization; they can meet in the schools on the same basis as any other outside organization.

 

You would still demand that the teachers continue to teach pragmatic atheism, though.. Correct me if I am wrong..

 

If by "pragmatic atheism" you mean science, then yes, of course.

 

What makes you assume that I belong to a religion?

 

Mostly your ignorance about science.

 

[packsaddle]

Just a quick reminder. Ignorance is an equal opportunity deficiency. It merely exists and isn't necessarily a prerequisite for anything (with the possible exception of prejudice, I'll ponder that a little longer). I think it is possible for a person to make ignorant statements about both science and religion and having made such a statement about one doesn't qualify them in the other. Actually, I would expect a person ignorant of science to be ignorant in other things as well.

 

To state my thesis in different terms, I agree that there exist statements that may seem to indicate a lack of depth of knowledge of science. That by itself, however, does not endow the person making the statement with religious belief or knowledge. Indeed, such a person could be profoundly ignorant of those matters as well. Just my view of ignorance, part of it anyway.

[Hunt]

I think a lawsuit against a PTA for sponsoring a Scout unit would fail, unless the PTA receives public funds-most don't. Nevertheless, a PTA might give in rather than defend such a suit. In addition, I don't think a PTA makes a very good CO because of the constantly changing cast of characters in the PTA. Furthermore, I don't think a school is the best place to meet, because access is generally limited. Accordingly, I don't think BSA should go to the barricades to defend public schools' ability to sponsor units--BSA would probably lose the case, and the value of those sponsorships is questionable in the first place. If you really want to meet in the school, get some other group to be the CO and just rent the school space.

[Adrianvs]

What makes you assume that I belong to a religion?

 

"Mostly your ignorance about science."

 

And where have I demonstrated ignorance of science? All I stated regarding science is that it is based on a philosophical assumption that the physical world exists. That is not a controversial claim. For you, science seems to be the materialist creed. Science is the systematic study of phenomena (perceivable events). It is inductive and probabilistic in nature.

 

I happen to know a little bit about science. I have been a college level biology tutor and I teach high school level courses on botany, zoology, and animal behavior. As a student of philosophy, I have written on the developments of science in Europe as well as the development of empiricism and logical positivism in Britain and the combination of the two into our modern scientific method. You, on the other hand, seem to have nothing more than a childish, simplistic, and flawed conception of science as something monolithic, dogmatic, and ideological. You have some mythic story about candles and darkness that was given you as a child. Science is not a creed. Materialism is a creed, but it is not intrinsic to empirical science. You seem to confuse the two.

 

For you, "ignorance of science" means "refusal to submit to Science, my god, who has favor with me and makes my opinions correct." It is you who are profoundly ignorant about science. For you, it seems to be the personal savior of your materialistic universe, rather than a systematic method of gaining knowledge of phenomena.

 

 

"If by "pragmatic atheism" you mean science, then yes, of course."

 

Have I yet referred to science as "pragmatic atheism?" I am talking about humanities courses. You seem to belive that I oppose the teaching of evolution because it doesn't "mention [my] particular god." In fact, I believe in macroevolution through genetic mutation and adaptive advantages. I have probably written more on the phenomenon than you have read. You are obsessed with the mythic notion that religous are somehow diametrically opposed to science. Grow up.

[Hunt]

I think it's absurd to claim that science clubs discriminate against people based on their views.

 

On the other hand, Merlyn is too quick to brand people as "liars" when they try to challenge or draw out his views. Merlyn, I haven't called you a liar when you repeatedly claim that the Boy Scouts had a "sweetheart deal" with San Diego, even though I think you know what you're saying isn't true. So please give the name-calling a rest.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

adrianvs writes:

And where have I demonstrated ignorance of science?

 

In answer to my question:

"Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can."

 

You said this:

 

All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies.

 

Now, your arguments aren't very coherent, but since I asked for an example of a public school running a group that excludes members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and you answered me with "all science clubs routinesly practice de facto discrimination", you seemed to be saying that science clubs practice such exclusion - that is, science clubs actually refuse membership to students who don't meet certain religious criteria (since that is what I was asking for, and that's how you responded). Of course, you haven't given any examples of students being refused membership in science clubs.

 

That, coupled with the usual "science is your god" idiocy leads me to conclude that you don't know much about science. And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments.

[Adrianvs]

First of all, I understand your position and I admit that I misunderstood it at first.

 

 

"Of course, you haven't given any examples of students being refused membership in science clubs."

 

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "de facto discrimination." You are right in that science clubs do not require members to sign statements of belief in the physical world or exclude members who do not sign. I used the qualifier "de facto" because the discrimination is of a different (albeit lesser) kind. Members of the science club are expected to have a philosophical belief in the physical world (a belief not held by Buddhism, some forms of Hinduism and other idealistic faiths) in order to function in the group.

 

Suppose that some organization's primary action was the direct worship of God (the Unmoved Mover, the Demiurge, the First Cause, etc.). It would properly said that such an organization was practicing de facto discrimination against atheists, even if the organization supposedly allowed atheists to join them on their rosters and in their endeavors. De facto discrimination (like de facto racial discrimination) need not be a written exclusionary policy. I admit that the type of discrimination demonstrated by the BSA is different from that demonstrated by the officially sponsored science clubs of public schools. I like science clubs and I like the BSA, but I am aware that they both discriminate on the basis of ideology. Yes, the BSA uses written statements and excludes those that don't agree. Yes, science clubs practice only de facto discrimination.

 

My question is this: If the BSA kept its official positions regarding the existance and importance of God and engaged in actions which were directly dependent on this existance and importance yet allowed atheists to join them just like idealists may join the science club, would you have a problem with it?

 

In other words: If the BSA's primary activity was the worship of God (just as a science club's primary activity is the study of the physical world), yet they allowed atheists to join them in this, would you object to government support of this organization?

 

 

"That, coupled with the usual 'science is your god' idiocy leads me to conclude that you don't know much about science."

 

Again, I do know something about science. Perhaps I should clarify my statment-- What you perceive to be science is your god. The fact that you cannot see the philosophical basis for empirical science demonstrates to me that you do not understand what science is. I have given you several descriptions of science. You only invoke the name of Science in stating that am ignorant of it, despite the fact that I am familiar with it through both study and practice. Tell me then-- what is this "science" that you speak of? Give us all a definition of this thing which we are all so ignorant of.

 

 

"And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments."

 

I understand your position completely. The problem is that your definition of "religious" and therefore "religious discrimination" is fundamentally flawed. You assume that I am working with the same definitions as you. God is not the only subject of religious thought. Some religions do not believe in God and some do not believe in the physical world. Some believe in both, some believe in one or the other and some believe in neither. An atheist who wants to belong to a theist group is no different than an idealist who wants to belong to an empirical science group. I have no problem with the government sponsoring either group, as I see neither to be government sponsorship of religion. If, on the other hand, you think that the government should sponsor neither, then go ahead. Just be consistent in your application of the rule.

 

You may disagree because you feel that the existance of the physcial world is just plain obvious and that the existance of God is mere religious conjecture. That is your (dare I say religious) belief. Just be equally aware that many people (Gandhi, Plato, Descartes, and Spinoza come to mind) hold that the existance of God is an obvious fact and that the existance of the physical world is a theoretical conjecture at best. Don't pretend that YOUR religious or philosophical truths should have more weight before the law than someone elses.

 

They shouldn't.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I wrote earlier:

"And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments."

 

adrianvs writes:

I understand your position completely.

 

No, you really don't, or you wouldn't have misunderstood it so completely at first.

 

And if you don't think my point-of-view regarding government sponsorship of BSA units holds more weight than yours, we'll just have to wait and see; so far, all cases that I know of have resulted in the government agency dropping sponsorship instead of even trying to defend it.

[Adrianvs]

Again,

 

You may disagree because you feel that the existance of the physcial world is just plain obvious and that the existance of God is mere religious conjecture. That is your (dare I say religious) belief. Just be equally aware that many people (Gandhi, Plato, Descartes, and Spinoza come to mind) hold that the existance of God is an obvious fact and that the existance of the physical world is a theoretical conjecture at best. Don't pretend that YOUR religious or philosophical truths should have more weight before the law than someone elses.

 

They shouldn't.

 

 

Two religious truths:

 

1. There is a God

2. There is a physical world.

 

They are BOTH accepted and rejected by religions of the world. BOTH are religious points. YOU happen to believe in number 2, but not number 1. THEREFORE, you claim that groups which teach number 2 but not number 1 should receive direct government support. Likewise, you consider groups that accept number 1 and/or disbelieve number 2 as unworthy of government support.

 

Groups that disagree with YOU on these religious principles are singled out while those that do not are not singled out. You expect the government to show favor to YOUR religous beliefs by giving them direct support without allowing such support to be given to groups which disagree with YOU.

 

That is what I mean by assuming that your philosophical and religious truths have more weight (merit, importance, whatever) before the law (government, whatever) than other persons'.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Again, you're lying about what my opinions are:

 

Two religious truths:

 

1. There is a God

2. There is a physical world.

 

They are BOTH accepted and rejected by religions of the world. BOTH are religious points. YOU happen to believe in number 2, but not number 1. THEREFORE, you claim that groups which teach number 2 but not number 1 should receive direct government support.

 

No, you're lying. I've never said groups that teach there is a physical world but not that there is a god should receive direct government support. I've never said the government SHOULD do that, and I disagree with your "poisoning the well" definitions in any case.

 

Likewise, you consider groups that accept number 1 and/or disbelieve number 2 as unworthy of government support.

 

Again, a lie; I've said that the government cannot legally and should not support groups that have religious requirements for membership.

 

Groups that disagree with YOU on these religious principles are singled out while those that do not are not singled out. You expect the government to show favor to YOUR religous beliefs by giving them direct support without allowing such support to be given to groups which disagree with YOU.

 

Only if the government subscribes to your ridiculous equivocations, which, fortunately, it doesn't appear to do.

 

That is what I mean by assuming that your philosophical and religious truths have more weight (merit, importance, whatever) before the law (government, whatever) than other persons'.

 

I'm not assuming that; that's a conclusion from actual observations of the Physical World [TM]:

 

I don't know of any court cases prohibiting government support of organizations that assume the physical world exists because the court found that to be a religious position; I know of court cases prohibiting government support of organizations that assume a god exists because the court DID find that to be a religious position (the Balboa Park case would be such an example, I'd say).

 

If you can find an actual court case supporting your contention that assuming the physical world exists constitutes a religious position, go ahead and cite them. Until then, you seem to be ignoring the physical world, or at least that subset of the physical world which constitutes US court proceedings.

[Hunt]

Again, I don't agree with what Adrian is saying, and he may indeed not grasp what Merlyn is saying. However, both what he and Merlyn are saying is here for anybody to read. Thus, Merlyn, I urge you to stop accusing him of lying. If you don't, I (with regret) would urge the moderators to ban you from this forum. I like to read spirited discussions, but I'm tired of personal attacks.

[LovetoCamp]

Hunt, you can't say Spirited.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Hey Hunt, if I'm trying to conduct an argument with adrianvs, and he misrepresents my very thoughts and opinions on the subject of the argument, pointing out that he's lying about my position has to be part of my rebuttal, since I can't proceed until I correct his misrepresentations.

 

Now, if someone genuinely misunderstands my position, I'll call it a mistake, but when someone states that my position is diametrically opposed to what I've publically stated many times (and other people don't seem to have a problem understanding my position), I have no qualms accusing that person of deliberate misrepresentation. Why is it impolite to call people liars, but not impolite to lie?

 

For similar reasons, I regard the national office of the Boy Scouts of America to be a thoroughly dishonest organization, because they continue to issue charters to government agencies to run their "private, discriminatory" youth groups, even though they know government agencies can't legally do this. I've actually called their legal department, and they've told me that they expect public schools to exclude atheist students from school-chartered BSA Venture Crews (even though public schools can't do this). Are any BSA supporters disturbed by the BSA's attitude?

 

By the way, did anyone notice (besides me) that Norwalk granted the permit?