The American heartland

[skeptic]

Merlyn:

 

Perhaps the word should be coerce, or manipulate, rather than force. By constantly taking issue with others' beliefs, and bringing legal actions, especially in ambiguous areas of public accommodation, they indirectly cause many groups to either spend time and funds to defend, or make spurious adjustments to try to evade the attacks.

 

Somehow, the beliefs and feelings of the few continue to be seen as more important and valid than the many. And when someone, or some organization actually stands up to them, they find every way possible to demonize and marginalize.

 

Force; Pressure? Call it something else, but it is real, and too often totally self serving.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[packsaddle]

Skeptic, Even if you apply the term, 'coerce' or whatever, there is nothing in these state-government changes that restrict the freedom of some flavor of religion to believe what they want to believe. Am I wrong?

What these legal changes DO is keep some flavors of religion from restricting the lives of OTHERS who don't share those beliefs. Like Narraticong noted just before the statement to which Merlyn responded, "I really don't care if government decides to recognize anything it wants as a "marriage". It matters not."

Indeed, it matters not to whatever religious beliefs anyone may have and I agree with that statement.

But Merlyn's question is one of clarification. Narraticong, in one sentence states that it matters not and in then later he implies that someone or something is trying to force his denomination to change their beliefs. That is quite alarming and whether Narraticong is mistaken, or if he has some evidence to support his assertion, Merlyn's question asks for that clarification. And I agree.

 

Skeptic, if you agree with Narraticong please explain how your denomination is being 'coerced' into changing its beliefs.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To continue with what packsaddle said, if the standard is now 'coerce' or 'manipulate' or 'pressure', if you're referring to non-governmental entities (and you seem to be, skeptic, by your usual dismissing of others' rights by saying it's the "beliefs and feelings of the few", as if smaller groups have fewer civil rights), then what you're really complaining about are other people exercising their first amendment rights in order to criticize groups that you are sympathetic with. Which is just something you'll need to live with.

[skeptic]

It is a two way street Merlyn; but somehow you seem to think it only one way. It is not the religious suing the Atheist, it is the Atheist suing the religious. I have never said, or even suggested you do not have a right to your beliefs. What I have said, and say again, is that you should not have the right to try to change rules to suit the few, just because you disagree with them. We live in communities, and they will cease to function if minority opinion can run rough shod over the majority through legal intimidation and big pockets.

 

Obviously, you care very little about society as a cohesive, and cooperative endeavor. You will continue your ego-centric attitude no matter what anyone else thinks, does, or even how much negative affects your litigious attacks cause.

 

To me, it is simply sad that community seems to be unimportant to so many. You have the right to believe anything you want, but that does not make it right; nor does your right outweigh mine. The amount of funds that is spent jousting at windmills could do so much more for the public good. And when you lose the match, you become even more vicious in your attacks. See the terrible things done in California when Prop 8 won; people publicly attacked and businesses picketed, just because they voted their conscience. Yet, somehow, many think that is okay. If it was turned around, the perpetrators would be branded as Nazi's or worse.

 

I voted against Prop 8, because I felt it went too far. But, I still do not feel personal living decisions should be anybody's business but those involved. I fail to understand how any moderately intelligent individual can be so insecure or shallow that they cannot ignore symbols and words with which they disagree and find it necessary to make an issue of it. While certainly I cannot prove or disprove it, I would suspect that if we ever implemented the legal methods in Europe, where litigants who lost would have to pay all the legal costs of those who they sued, we would see far fewer of these types of suits. As long as it is less expensive to simply roll over, or pay a settlement, it will continue. And very often to the detriment of community, especially when the payee is government. There are your taxes being put to good use.

 

Enough; shield up. Later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Once again skeptic, you seem to think atheists have fewer rights than you. It doesn't work that way. You just can't take criticism.

[skeptic]

"Once again skeptic, you seem to think atheists have fewer rights than you. It doesn't work that way. You just can't take criticism."

 

Huh??? Do you ever listen to yourself?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes. Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

Here you are advocating that public schools ought to be able to operate private, "no atheists" clubs, ignoring the civil rights of atheists students and dismissing any concern for their rights as "PC", as if that makes trampling their rights acceptable:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5

 

[skeptic]

"Here you are advocating that public schools ought to be able to operate private, "no atheists" clubs, ignoring the civil rights of atheists students and dismissing any concern for their rights as "PC", as if that makes trampling their rights acceptable:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5"

 

Actually, all I said was that perhaps rational reasoning and common sense would be able to win out over PC nonsense. Even if the school was the actual sponsor, it would still NOT be required that the Atheist or whomever actually participate. And, if it so bothered them that they were on school property, with some school support, then they could START their own group and meet there also. Of course it highly unlikely they would have enough interest to make it work; but that gives them an excuse to claim it is unfair.

 

No matter what rationale someone puts forward, you just continue to regurgitate that they are infringing on Atheists and other fringe groups' rights somehow. They have the same exact rights, other than to FORCE the others to admit them and change their rules and precepts. They can develop their own programs and use the facilities just the same as the scouts. So far though, that has not worked very well, as can be seen by the lack of success of the few who tried. Oh, that must be the BSA's fault too, somehow, or Christians, or whomever else they don't like and agree with. Yep, that's it.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Actually, all I said was that perhaps rational reasoning and common sense would be able to win out over PC nonsense.

 

The "PC nonsense" being public schools not violating the rights of atheist students.

 

Even if the school was the actual sponsor, it would still NOT be required that the Atheist or whomever actually participate.

 

Just like a school-run "no Jews" private club would not require the Jew or whomever actually participate.

 

And, if it so bothered them that they were on school property, with some school support, then they could START their own group and meet there also.

 

Just like Jews who were bothered by a public school running a "no Jews" private club could start their own club and meet there also.

 

Of course it highly unlikely they would have enough interest to make it work; but that gives them an excuse to claim it is unfair.

 

Just like the Jews.

 

No matter what rationale someone puts forward, you just continue to regurgitate that they are infringing on Atheists and other fringe groups' rights somehow.

 

For the simple reason that they are.

 

They have the same exact rights, other than to FORCE the others to admit them and change their rules and precepts. They can develop their own programs and use the facilities just the same as the scouts.

 

This does not mean public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

So far though, that has not worked very well, as can be seen by the lack of success of the few who tried. Oh, that must be the BSA's fault too, somehow, or Christians, or whomever else they don't like and agree with. Yep, that's it.

 

Public school charters haven't worked very well, have they? The BSA removed them all when the ACLU threatened to sue any public school that chartered a BSA unit that discriminated.

 

[skeptic]

"Public school charters haven't worked very well, have they? The BSA removed them all when the ACLU threatened to sue any public school that chartered a BSA unit that discriminated."

 

And the circle of regurgitation is completed. Shall we start again?

 

Nah! What is the point?

 

 

 

[NWScouter]

BSA learns their lessons. One of the reason there is a Venturing Program is because BSA could see the handwriting on the wall. The old Explorer Scouts had many public governmental sponsors primarily in the career fields. When the BSA realized that it would not fly to prohibit from leadership gay and/or atheist leaders there, it may have been developing Venturing before that as way to put some punch in the non-career units, it took the opportunity to create a new corporation called Learning for Life and put Exploring in there with the school program called Learning for Life. Now they can have different leadership standards for each corporations.

 

There is a whole other discussion, on why they use the same set of employees to work with both programs in most councils.

[evmori]

No one has said atheists have less rights than others! They have the same rights as every other American citizen. What you are advocating, Merlyn, is special rights for atheists! The Constitution guarantees a lot but it doesn't guarantee you won't be offended.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, what's offensive is your thick-headedness in thinking being offended is the posited constitutional problem. It isn't.

[evmori]

Ed, what's offensive is your thick-headedness in thinking being offended is the posited constitutional problem. It isn't.

 

I never said it was, Merlyn. That's my point! Atheists have the same rights as non-atheists, yet you moan & complain your rights are being violated!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

There you go being thickheaded again, Ed. While I'm offended by skeptic's advocating that public schools ought to be able to run private clubs that exclude atheists, the unconstitutional part would be if public schools actually did so, and it would be unconstitutional NOT because it merely offended atheist students, but because of the school's unavoidable religious discrimination in running such a private club.