Why not girls or atheists?

[Peregrinator]

No, the "public expression of religion" does not include unlawful government imposition of religion.

 

Having a cross in a public museum or prayer in a school does not impose anything on anyone. Besides, in the words of Kenneth Bronstein of NYC Atheists, "The cross is not a miracle. It is just a couple of rusty girders." Only an atheist would claim that something is a couple of rusty girders and then expect to be taken seriously when he says it is an imposition of religion.

 

I use it against bigots like yourself. Stop whining.

 

Oh, I'm not whining. I don't mind being called a bigot. I am simply pointing out that your use of the word doesn't have the effect you seem to want it to have -- in fact, probably the opposite.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

Having a cross in a public museum or prayer in a school does not impose anything on anyone.

 

That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

 

Besides, in the words of Kenneth Bronstein of NYC Atheists, "The cross is not a miracle. It is just a couple of rusty girders." Only an atheist would claim that something is a couple of rusty girders and then expect to be taken seriously when he says it is an imposition of religion.

 

What kind of bizarre non-reasoning are you using now? Are you saying a couple of rusty girders can't be a cross? Or are you saying a cross isn't a religious icon?

[Peregrinator]

That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

 

It isn't wrong. One can simply avoid going to the museum or avoid going to that particular display. In a school, one can simply eschew saying prayers.

 

Are atheists in general so prickly and easily offended, or just the ones on the Internet? If an atheist rejects the existence of God, why does he have such hatred for religious symbols and practices? Why do Christian symbols in general, and the cross in particular, have such a power over atheists?

 

Let me know when you get fined or imprisoned or killed for not assisting at religious services (like recusant Catholics in England under Queen Elizabeth I) and then we can talk.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Perergrinator writes:

It isn't wrong. One can simply avoid going to the museum or avoid going to that particular display.

 

In that case, nothing is ever "imposed" on anyone.

 

In a school, one can simply eschew saying prayers.

 

Well, now it's obvious you aren't even familiar with the prayer banner case, as reciting prayers wasn't part of the case AT ALL. Why do you insist on commenting out of total ignorance?

 

Let me know when you get fined or imprisoned or killed for not assisting at religious services (like recusant Catholics in England under Queen Elizabeth I) and then we can talk.

 

So threats of death are not good enough now? And just how can I let you know if I get killed? You plan on using a Ouija board?

 

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Aan

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Body-found-in-North-Texas-identified-as-soldier-3403078.php

http://powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2006-January/005168.html

[Peregrinator]

In that case, nothing is ever "imposed" on anyone.

 

Quite wrong, since one has the option to not go to a museum, to not look at a display, to not pray, to turn one's eyes away from a prayer banner, etc.

 

Well, now it's obvious you aren't even familiar with the prayer banner case, as reciting prayers wasn't part of the case AT ALL. Why do you insist on commenting out of total ignorance?

 

It was not important to me, so I forgot about it. But in this case it is even more ridiculous. It seems to me that it is much easier to avert one's eyes from a prayer banner than it is to eschew saying prayers when all one's classmates are saying them. I mean, do atheists and their apparatchiks expect to be taken seriously when they complain that their eyes fell on something religious? Weren't you recently remarking on the phenomenon of religious conservatives being afraid of atheist cooties from the likes of Ayn Rand? Are atheists afraid of religious cooties? Do they think that prayer murals/banners/public crosses force them to become religious? Because that is what "imposing" means.

 

So threats of death are not good enough now?

 

I'm not excusing threats of death. I was referring to the "imposing" of religion upon atheists in this country, which is practically non-existent, especially compared with historical impositions of religion and those that still exist in other parts of the world.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

It was not important to me, so I forgot about it. But in this case it is even more ridiculous. It seems to me that it is much easier to avert one's eyes from a prayer banner than it is to eschew saying prayers when all one's classmates are saying them.

 

Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion.

 

I'm not excusing threats of death.

 

Why not? It's just "blowback".

 

I was referring to the "imposing" of religion upon atheists in this country, which is practically non-existent,

 

Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent.

 

especially compared with historical impositions of religion and those that still exist in other parts of the world.

 

That doesn't excuse ignoring the constitution here in the US.

[Peregrinator]

Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Why not? It's just "blowback".

 

Blowback is a term used to describe the consequences of aggressive actions. It doesn't mean that the people who take part in the blowback are absolved from blame.

 

Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent.

 

It will never be non-existent, certainly not if atheists continue to view minor inconveniences (which are faced by everyone) as impositions.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Of course it does.

 

Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent.

 

It will never be non-existent, certainly not if atheists continue to view minor inconveniences (which are faced by everyone) as impositions.

 

Well then, expect this to continue forever. Kind of like this pointless argument.

 

[Oak Tree]

My guesses:

 

No focus on girls because

1. GSUSA is perceived as an equal option.

2. Public is generally ok with other gender-segregated programs.

3. People can understand a reluctance to send boys and girls camping together.

4. It's stated right up front as part of the BSA's mission that it will focus on boys.

 

No focus on atheists because

1. The BSA is up front that it requires a belief in God to be a member.

2. Atheist-rights are not a prominent part of the public discourse. I can't think of any other current discussion of atheist rights at all. I think this is generally perceived as a battle that's over, with only private religious organizations continuing to discriminate.

 

And gay-rights are very much in the public eye, and people generally see no apparent reason why the mission of the BSA requires a ban on gay leaders. It comes across as very unfair, and people are much more likely to get upset about things that seem unfair.

[Platypus96]

Peregrinator, from what I have read here, you are indeed a bigot. No atheist (that I know of) condemns an individuals right to practice their religion however they please. However, they do condemn it when the government attempts to impose religion on them. Now, you may think that saying group prayer in school, or even just seeing a prayer banner in the school, may not be an imposition. You are wrong. When an atheist (especially one in school, who is often a teenager and just discovering his lack of a belief) sees that banner, it is a big sign reminding them that a large number of people around him firmly believe that he will spend an eternity suffering for his "sins." That is a terrible realization. That has no place in a school.

[Pint]

The God question, or issue dependiong on your take on it goes further than the BSA or any other national Scout organisation

 

take a read of this from the Wosm website:

http://www.scout.org/information_events/resource_centre/the_leader_s_questions/spiritual_dimension

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator, from what I have read here, you are indeed a bigot.

 

In what way?

 

No atheist (that I know of) condemns an individuals right to practice their religion however they please.

 

How about atheist government regimes?

 

Now, you may think that saying group prayer in school, or even just seeing a prayer banner in the school, may not be an imposition.

 

Right, I do think that because it is not an imposition. What is an imposition is the eradication of religion from public schools. No one is forced to take part in prayer (that would be an imposition). The only force employed is to make certain that religion doesn't show its face in public schools.

 

When an atheist (especially one in school, who is often a teenager and just discovering his lack of a belief) sees that banner, it is a big sign reminding them that a large number of people around him firmly believe that he will spend an eternity suffering for his "sins."

 

I've often heard it said that people don't have the right not to be offended.

[Peregrinator]

The God question, or issue dependiong on your take on it goes further than the BSA or any other national Scout organisation

 

Well, of course -- because that is what Baden-Powell taught in his own writings. Those who want to delete God from Scouting (which Baden-Powell called "applied Christianity") want to make it into something other than Scouting.

[packsaddle]

I was about to call platypus out for that 'bigot' remark but then peregrinator stated his belief that "people don't have the right not to be offended."

 

H'mmmm...play on.

[tgrimstead]

I have 2 atheist scouts in my Bear Den. I am a Christian, as that is what others have labeled me as, and I will never deny the scout experience from a boy. Period!!!

Girls have GSUSA or AHG or Venturing or LFL. Though many countries include girls in their Scouting. ( I think our program is superior to GSUSA, but that's me.)

Gays? well...what is worse a CM who is a drunk, drug addict, porn addict, divorced, liar, thief, lazy, uses profanity, over weight...etc. All these are sins and all sins are equal and we all sin. Last I checked Jesus associated with sinners (and tax collectors) :)to the dismay of his followers, as they were the ones who needed him most. We are the ones who need him most.(If you believe in him.) By exclusion you condone bigotry.

 

Yours In Cheerful Service,

Tim

( who is addicted to Mt.Dew!!)