Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Ed writes: Nice word for spin, Merlyn. It's OK for you & the ACLU to say the BSA discriminates against atheists but it's not OK for the BSA to have a membership requirement that requires belief in God? No, Ed, you can't read, and I'm not going to try explaining it too you, as you never understand even the simplest things. Hey madkins007, if the messages were signed "Merlyn LeRoy", it was probably me, I don't know anyone else who uses that nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthillnc Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Yes, I meant to say "Defense Department" in my blog.... brain fart.. blah LOL I went and edited my blog for that. (This message has been edited by matthillnc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I read fine, Merlyn. Me thinks the reason you won't explain is because you can't explain. Prove me wrong! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Ed, here are parts you don't understand: You wrote: Funding a BSA event is not establishing a religion! I replied: I never said it established a religion. You: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," You agreed this isn't happening. Wrong. You erroneously seemed to assume that I agree with you over what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. I don't, I agree with the court that funding the BSA is a violation of the establishment clause. Keep in mind that the constitution says "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and NOT "no law respecting an establishment of *A* religion." Here's another example: You: The BSA doesn't exclude atheists. Atheists don't meet the membership requirements of the BSA. Me: Ed, sophistry doesn't work in court. You: It's OK for you & the ACLU to say the BSA discriminates against atheists but it's not OK for the BSA to have a membership requirement that requires belief in God? I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with that comeback. My remark about your laughable sophistry is how you try to claim that the BSA doesn't exclude atheists, it's their membership requirements that keep them out(!?) Using idiotic logic like that, an organization that has "members cannot be Jews" doesn't exclude Jews, it's just that Jews don't meet their membership requirements. And suddenly NO organization excludes anyone, it's all the fault of their respective membership requirements. Courts won't buy that. Even the BSA's official legal website says that they exclude atheists and agnostics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthillnc Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Merlyn Said: "Even the BSA's official legal website says that they exclude atheists and agnostics." Don't forget gays... the legal site says the BSA exlcudes them too. The issue of discrimination does not just hit upon one or two groups... it hits on various groups.... I think that its sad that the Illinois case didn't tackle the gay discrimination part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 So funding the Jamboree is establishing a religion? That makes no sense! How is that defined in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," No law is established regarding any religion. You seem to want to stretch this clause to say because atheists don't meet the BSA membership requirements the government isn't allowed to help fund a BSA activity. And by doing so, the government is in violation of the 1st Amendment. Talk about spin! You are one poor misguided soul, Merlyn, and I will continue to pray for you. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greeneagle5 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Just a thought for the 2010 Jamboree site...... Perhaps the BSA should ask it's corporate lawyers to commence condemnation proceedings(with the recent Supreme Court rulings on seizing private property (Eminent Domain)for the financial betterment of the community) on the ACLU's national offices and US District Judge Manning's vacation properties. 45,000 international Scouts and staff could generate a tremendous economic impact on those local economies......(tongue in cheek)......... A reality check....., perhaps this Summer's upcoming Jamboree is a good time for BSA (and all of us) to re-evaluate the overall Jamboree Program and if it's financially and enviormentally responsible to continue having 45,000 people and all the necessary support equipment(any LNT issues here ???)set up for a 10 day reunion and training event in any undeveloped rural area . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Ed writes: So funding the Jamboree is establishing a religion? No Ed, funding the Jamboree is NOT establishing a religion, but it is a violation of the establishment clause, because the establishment clause covers much more than you comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I understand fine, Merlyn. The problem is there is no 1st Amendment violation here! There is no establishment of religion or curtailment of free speech. Maybe in your mind there is but in reality, there isn't. I like the eminent domain idea! It will be overturned. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Ed writes: I understand fine, Merlyn. No, you really don't. As an example, when I said that funding the Jamboree did not establish a religion, you assumed incorrectly that I agreed it wasn't in violation of the establishment clause. The problem is there is no 1st Amendment violation here! The problem is that a federal judge has ruled that there IS a 1st amendment violation here. Have you even bothered to read the decision to find out why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Actually, yes I have. And it appears the ruling is based on a violation of the Establishment clause. So if you agree (and you have) this isn't establishing a religion, then how can it be a violation? Since you seem to be so learned and I'm just not a intelligent as you, what is the violation? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Ed writes: Actually, yes I have. And it appears the ruling is based on a violation of the Establishment clause. So if you agree (and you have) this isn't establishing a religion, then how can it be a violation? I thought you said you read the decision? Like all legal decisions, it goes into great detail on how that decision was reached, and why it's a violation. It's all spelled out, and it certainly isn't my job to try and explain it to you; you've never understood even the simplest legal decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 [duplicate post deleted](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 OK, since Merlyn can't explain, maybe someone can. If letting the BSA hold their Jamboree on government property isn't establishing a religion, how can this be a violation of the establishment clause? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Ed, I can explain it; I said I won't try to explain it to you. Your misinterpretation of "I won't explain" to mean "I can't explain" illustrates why I won't try to explain it to you. Why can't you just read the judge's decision? It spells out the legal reasons in laborious detail. 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