'Rogue' UK Girl Guide troop won't use new non-religious promise, excludes new leader

[moosetracker]

And I stated I only disrespect those who disrespect others and therefore ask to be disrespected by their actions.. I respect anyone who finds how to tolerate and respect others.. I NEVER asked the disrespectful to respect ME.. First off I am NOT important enough to walk around DEMANDING respect from anyone.. All I said was that I would not welcome the radical fringe of your group into the BSA because they lack the ability to show tolerance and respect for anyone who has a different point of view.. Same as the radical conservative fringe of the conservative religious right.. They disrespect and want to eradicate homosexuals and atheists from their sight because it offends them, and try to force rules and laws in BSA and politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. Your radical fringe want to eradicate anything religious from your sight because it offends you, and try to force rules and laws politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. There is no difference between either group, except for what offends them.. Lies, Lies, twisting my words and making things up to spit out Lies..

 

That is not hypocrisy.. But.. Thanks for the answer. Since admit you are wrong for how you twist, and pick through my writing to make falsehoods about me..You have told me I have the perfect right to say anything I want about you and weather I I can either just accurately quote you.. (get a lot out of that alone.) Or like you if it's a slow day I can pick out parts and phrases of yours and blend them together to my purpose and throw out wild accusations about you..

 

 

Therefore where to start ??? This will be fun..

 

To my original question to you then got you all unhinged.. Sorry, you don't get the right to tell me I can't interpret your defense of your radical fringe buddies as meaning you agree with them..

 

I was comply with your wishes a few posts ago, and TRIED to give you an open ended question, to answer which of course you ignored.. What do you call a man who rants and raves over BSA rules that are unfair to him, and gets all flustered, when someone tells his group not to fight it but start a new group.. But.. when the shoe is on the other foot and his group wins a battle.. Delights in saying this..

“It appears their "love of god" means excluding people who don't believe the same as them, and also breaking the rules of the organization. Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?â€Â

 

Answer.. A man who demands all rules are written to benefit him, yet disregards the feelings of others when rules are written to benefit him and hurt others.. IS A HYPOCRITE!!!

Look it up..

What do you call a man who demands that no one read what he writes and infer logical conclusions about them, because their LIES, but deems himself utterly within rights to do it to everyone else around him, even when he makes things up and twists words around to do so??? Perhaps the word that comes to mind is A HYPOCRITE!!! And lets add on disrespectful to boot.. Because it fits..

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Here's my first reply to you in this thread:

Seriously though Merlyn here is where we split.. Though I would be fine with some change to include atheists, I would expect Atheists to come in respecting the beliefs of others.. Probably if this happened to BSA, then I would end up trying to appease by allowing both the old & new oaths to be done, and you can pick the one you like, and stay silent and RESPECTFUL while the other group says the one they like..

 

What's that got to do with this story? The leaders of this GG troop are the ones not respecting the atheist.

 

And if you're referring to "Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?", your sarcasm meter is busted.

 

Like I've said before, the leaders of this GG troop aren't allowing an atheist to take the official promise. But for some reason, you use it as another excuse to slam atheists who aren't the right sort to be in scouting. But the atheist in this situation isn't doing anything the least bit wrong or disrespectful; the GG troop leaders are.

 

And your replies make it look more and more like you're frothing at the mouth and about to burst a vein in your head. You've gone from whining to raving.

 

What do you call a man who demands that no one read what he writes and infer logical conclusions about them, because their LIES

 

"They're LIES", not "their LIES". And sorry, no, whenever you or anyone else tries to tell me what I feel, and you get it wrong, I'll call you a liar because that's what you're doing. You aren't inferring a logical conclusion because I never wrote nor implied that respecting the beliefs of atheists required disrespecting the beliefs of non-atheists. That's something you made up out of whole cloth.

 

And that's also why I wrote this earlier in response to you:

I am not lying about you. I am reading what you wrote and interpreting it due to what I read, and responding to what I read.

 

Then you should have no problem coming up with an exact quote from me that means "Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?" But instead you just re-read what I wrote and make up how you think I "feel" due to your own prejudices.

 

See? You need to quote something I wrote to support your assertion. But instead, in response to the above, you quoted YOURSELF:

Ok Merlyn , If asking you an open ended question that is aimed at you opening up and explaining to me why I am picking up a vibe from you I have never sensed from you before.. The same comment also included this "Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. ".

 

Look, quoting yourself does NOTHING to justify your lie about me. Above, you're again assuming your OWN conclusion, yet you've not quoted ANYTHING I've written. Just more of your own blather.

[JoeBob]

Hey Merlyn,

 

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to accomplish. Do you think you are convincing anyone to come over to your point of view?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Which point of view? I have a lot.

 

As for the article, my view is that the atheist leader should be able to take the official promise. Who disagrees with that?

[moosetracker]

Frothing at the mouth!.. I am laughing in hysterics at your childish behavior, and having a great time.. And again your inability to see in yourself exactly what you accuse others of (or just your feeling of entitlement to do unto others what you are insulted by anyone doing right back to you.. I am having real fun, because, with every post you write you paint yourself more into a corner, and continually loose more & more ground..

 

Hmmm… Probably if this happened to BSA, then I would end up trying to appease by allowing both the old & new oaths to be done, and you can pick the one you like, and stay silent and RESPECTFUL while the other group says the one they like..

 

Again only seeing the part of phrase you wish to see, and ignoring the rest of the paragraph???? Then spinning your own interpretation that I was stating only atheist needed to be respectful?? I also don’t see where I said they needed to respect ME, I said they needed to respect EACH OTHER…

 

Reposting the GG PR statement still doesn’t prove a thing, except that PR statements put a smiley face on a history of complaints and bickering until they attempted to put an end to it with this decision.. I don’t have to take it up with them. I am not in that organization.. Doesn’t keep me from looking it and making my own decision on if it was good or not.. I can do that with policies that other state governments are making where I don’t live, such as I don’t think Texas has the right to attempt to create a state religion while outlawing someone else’s religious beliefs.. YOU want to impeach them, and you don’t live there!!!.. I think my stating my opinion of it, is not as bad as you thinking you have the right to go to TEXAS and vote them out of office, even when you don’t live there.

 

Merlyn : As for the article, my view is that the atheist leader should be able to take the official promise. Who disagrees with that?

 

Not me.. I said she should be able to take the official promise, and you called me disrespectful and a hypocrite to have that opinion.. (True, I also backed the other group.. shame on me)

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not me.. I said she should be able to take the official promise, and you called me disrespectful and a hypocrite to have that opinion..

 

No, I didn't. Here's where I called you disrespectful and a hypocrite:

--------------------

But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.

 

Just like you're not being respectful of atheists right now. Hypocrite.

--------------------

[packsaddle]

OK, are we ready for the fire hose yet? I mean I left this thread for just a few hours and...wow!

 

FWIW, Moosetracker is female, not that that makes any difference. Moosetracker, did you ever experience the Merlyn/Evmori exchanges?

 

I suggest a high-calorie, high-carb lunch for everyone. And then sleep it off.

[st0ut717]

merlyn as you may have gathered from my postings I am not a Christian fundamentalist nor do i approve of a particular theology being taught in scouting.

there is a foundation of honor in even in atheism. for i hold that an atheist can have morals, ethics, a measure of right and wrong.

So even though i share your point of view on the issue I have to say that I disapprove of the method and the message that you are insisting upon.

 

[moosetracker]

Gosh Merlyn! Please figure out why you think I'm disrespectful and a Hypocrite, and focus!! Your weaving and dodging to try to figure out what I said that makes me a hypocrite and disrespectful in your eyes, is making me dizzy!!!

 

 

Yes, that statement is correct and truthful the big word in that statement being FRACTION. You can't say I am disrespectful for stating the truth. I am also not a hypocrite for stating the truth (Please re-read the definition).. Had I said all atheists, and created a prejudicial statement about the whole group, then I might be called disrespectful, but still not a hypocrite.. And as in typical Merlyn fashion, again, you missed the first sentence in that paragraph.. To only cherry pick what you wanted to.

 

The first sentence was :

If this [being part of the group] was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%..

 

Sorry, again, READ the whole post, and don't cherry pick to twist my words to insinuate different meaning out of what I wrote..

 

I have atheist friends who have told me they are embarrassed by this radical fringe, because it paints them in a bad light.. Hurting, not helping them gain respect within their communities. Would you like to call them disrespectful and a hypocrite of themselves??

 

Sorry, I don't like people who want to join a group simply to create a hostile environment for all.. Doesn't matter which group is creating the hostile environment.. I am alone on this belief.. When ever the forum lights up over someone creating a hostile environment, the main response is either remove them from the unit, or remove yourself from the unit, depending on if the person has the weight to remove the hostile person or not.. If you have a cancer, rip it out.. better yet take preventative action so you never get the problem. If possible be pro-active rather then retro-active.

 

That makes me consistent in what I care about and believe in.. Which is the opposite of hypocritical, and makes me equally respectful to ALL groups..

[skeptic]

Yep, it does remind of Ed and M. Is it time for that "pie" we used to speak about? Or would it just get thrown in faces?

[King Ding Dong]

Pack recall you mentioning the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster a while back, I ran across the term somewhere else recently and decided to goggle it. Wow what scream. Seems the the perfect religion for any atheist who has issues with the BSA DRP. Friday is their Holy Day so it has the added benefit of solving conflicts on campouts. Lots of craft opportunities for the Cubs as well.

[fred johnson]

You see your problem here is that you've taken something written in The Daily mail at face value.

 

It's also in the Telegraph and on the website of the National Secular Society, but you apparently aren't interested in doing any checking or you'd know that already.

 

It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story..

 

Hey, they're disobeying the rules of a group they freely joined; if they don't like it, they can start their own group. That's what many BSA members have pushed on atheists and gays for years, but I guess that "rule" only works for rules you prefer.

 

But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.

 

Just like you're not being respectful of atheists right now. Hypocrite.

You continue to be a spiteful hate monger.

[fred johnson]

Merlin Leroy - No, I got the sarcasm.. It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story.. Since the story indicates that the atheist is not trying to find compromise, either by asking that both pledges are said, or looking if there is a different troop in the area that has conformed.. I do not see the GG troop as the only one acting incorrectly.. Also my comment is based on the fact the promise was changed by National to only respect the atheists and not the religious base that has been their original base group and I assume is still the greater portion of the group.. The change was made because atheist came into the group and instead of looking for a compromise that would make each group happy, they disrespected the beliefs of the group they were entering and lobbied National to only placate to their beliefs.. This action of atheists is why I am much more vocal about supporting the inclusion of atheists in BSA, and only slightly siding with you about including atheists..

 

Homosexuals want to be in scouting to be part of the group, and though homophobias will claim that they will insist that we all become homosexuals, or are joining in order to rape us all in our sleep, (which is pure bunk), They may push hard to be accepted equally, but they do not push that everyone become homosexuals. I can respect that. I have no problem with a group that just wants to be accepted..

 

If this was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%.. But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.. Therefore I can only see my support for this effort as somewhere between 60 to 75% based on what I estimate is the "normal people" atheist group and the "activist" atheist group..

 

With homosexuals, I also do not believe in local option.. Meaning that no unit should be forced to accept homosexuals if they are totally against them. I don't see it healthy for either party. The homosexuals should want to go to a group where they are welcomed and made to feel part of the group.. Obviously this group and this atheist are not a good mix. The atheist should look for a group that accepts her with open arms, then force compliance by a group that does not want to change.

 

(The comments above are based on the article as written)

 

OK Cambridgeskip.. You have stated the story is not accurate.. Is this because this rag has a reputation of never having a correct story.. Or do you happen to know the true story.. Have more respectable news agencies debunked this story, where you can give us the more accurate story?.. Even FOX can every now and then do a story that is not debunked.. Or is just corrected for their snarkiness or biased on the subject.. I did not really see which side they were pushing in this story. It seemed more like a report really created a demon or an angel, it just seemed to report both sides of the argument. So I wasn't able to pick out the pure bunk..

moosetracker wrote: "But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect."

 

Very true. Look at the YMCA that in the name itself has Christian and started as a Christian fellowship for men. Continued that way. When I grew up, our YMCA had a Cross and religious pictures. Now, they are all gone.

[fred johnson]

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

 

It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light.

 

I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose..

 

And the UK Girl Guides certainly could have done that, if that's what they decided, but they didn't. They seemed to think that having one promise for everyone was preferable (maybe they considered it more uniting than having various promises).

 

So why is the above decision suddenly the fault of atheists? It isn't. But you sure seem ready to place the blame on them, when, in this particular case, it's some religious members who are not following the rules, and not even allowing a new leader to take the official promise.

 

Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group.

 

Well, you don't get there by scapegoating one group as always being the troublemakers.

 

Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?

 

I don't. Why are you lying about me?

Merlyn ... You are just not intellectually honest. You are often disrespectful of others beliefs and you work toward purging BSA of it's long time religious aspect. You suggest the UK group start it's own group to practice their own religious principles, but you have spent ten years in this group pounding your dead horse. I pity those who think all we are is worm fodder.

[packsaddle]

Yep, it does remind of Ed and M. Is it time for that "pie" we used to speak about? Or would it just get thrown in faces?

I think I felt a chunk flop onto my forehead already. At least I HOPE that was pie.