AZMike

We are so quick to stereotype and pigeonhole other people. .

 

Glad you included yourself in that population of us stereotyping, pigeonholing offenders.

The collapse of marriage as the institution in which children are properly born and raised has created a very gun-shy generation of young men, especially among the urban and rural lower classes. I spoke with a 28-year male (hard to described him as a "man") who had multiple kids by multiple young women, did not provide any financial support for them to speak of, but still spoke fatuously of his "kids." I asked him if he planned to marry the latest girl, and he looked at me like I had proposed that he sprout wings and fly to the moon. "Oh, no...I'm really not ready for that!" I felt like shaking him and asking when he WOULD be ready.

 

And really, if a young man is poor and looking to better his position in life, he should get married. One of the few avenues of advancement for a young man with no money (along with avoiding dope and alcohol and neck tattoos) is to increase his social network (and not on Twitter). When you commit to a young woman and promise to support her and raise a family and give her your name, society looks at you differently. You are probably less likely to be laid off by your boss. You are probably more likely to be promoted or get a raise. You're seen as an adult, finally, by other men who consider themselves adults. And her family will be more likely to help you out if they see you as her husband and the father and support of their grandchild, instead of the shiftless lout who knocked up their little girl and now only shows up on Saturdays and Christmas. For those constantly living on the edge of financial disaster, that's huge. That may make the difference between getting a loan to fix your car to get to work, or at least a ride from her dad.

 

The BSA has never argued that in court. Whenever they are forced to make a statement in a court of law, they always say it's due to not wanting them as role models.

 

 

 

Fair enough, that's a legitimate argument as well.

 

On the last quote, see my previous post: this is from the draft statement that will render the cite you gave inoperative, if they have their way: The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.

My bad - I see this issue is under review:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/cali...ith-boy-scouts

 

Per the article, California has an exception for BSA youth leaders that they want to remove. I don't think it is really an atheist issue, Merlyn.

 

If the standards are rewritten, the new societally-approved code will also bar judges from holding commissions in the military reserves or National Guard, as the miltary still discriminates against women in certain specialties:

 

The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.

 

As every judge is a lawyer, I would imagine the fights over requiring judges to resign from the BSA, the masons, or lose their service pensions/ranks will stretch out over the next three millennia...

Because the California Code of Judicial Ethics contains exceptions; there's an exception for religion' date=' and one that was carved out for the Boy Scouts a few years ago.[/size']

 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

 

Merlyn, I don't see any exception for the Boy Scouts in the link you posted. Is there an exception for the BSA now, or not?

 

There are any number of other private organizations that judges cannot belong to under these standards:

1. Absent such factors, an organization is
   
2. 38 generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
   

 

 

One could of course argue that the BSA does not "arbitrarily" exclude atheists from membership, as the existing standards are clearly meant to enhance and inculcate a belief in a Supreme Being - it's not like atheists were arbitrarily chosen for exclusion and, say, the Quakers just dodged the bullet of exclusion by sheer chance. The BSA also excludes LAGABATAs as leaders due to legitimate concerns over youth safety - whether one agrees with them or not, the BSA has a legitimate interest in youth protection, and the BSA did not "arbitrarily" exclude them. They have stated reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

 

Under these administrative standards, no judge could be a Mason, as their membership standards require that you:

• Be a man.
  
• Have a sound reputation, and be well-recommended by your peers.
  
• In most freemasonry jurisdictions, you must believe in a Supreme Being, regardless of your religion.
  
• Be over the age of 21 years.
  

Like the BSA, they are an organization that is Theist in intent, and thus their standards for membership are not arbitrary.. And I have met several judges in the California court system who are freemasons, based on their rings and tie clasps. I suspect that most judges will do as they please on this issue as they do with the BSA.

 

I don't know about that, Sentinel, this guy is pretty cagey. No telling what level of spoofing he's capable of.

As for that 2nd coming, that already happened too, just before the rapture...we're all left behind. Plus...you've convinced me...no coincidence at all.

Edit to add: Almost forgot, Have a nice day!

 

Merlyn - They're on to us / me - RUN!!!

If you're thinking in terms of rapture' date=' that whole thing happened already back in 1996. But, on a lighter note, I have no evidence whatsoever that AZMike and Merlyn are not, in fact, the same person. Interesting, huh?[/quote']

 

Merlyn & AZ MIke: The Seven Strange Coincidences.

 

1. "Merlyn" begins with an "M." "Mike" also begins with an "M."

 

2. Merlyn is an atheist. "Atheist" begins with an "A." "AZ," which is Mike's first name, also begins with an "A."

 

3. AZ Mike is a Catholic. There are eight letters in "Catholic." Merlyn is an atheist. There are eight letters in the word "attheist."

 

4. The word "atheist" is not usually capitalized in common parlance. AZ Mike lives in the capital of Arizona.

 

5. Atheists do not believe in God. AZ Mike believes in God, but does not believe in Dog. AZ Mike is dyslexic.

 

6. "Merlyn" is a variant spelling of the name of the Head Wizard of King Arthur's Court. Arthur was a Catholic. Merlin (the Wizard, not the poster on Scouter.Com) was a changeling whose father was apparently an incubus, but Merlin himself was a Unitarian or something.

 

7. As a Catholic, AZ Mike is neither a Darbyite nor a Montanist, and so is neither a Premillenialist nor a Postmillennialist, but is an Amillennnialist and reads the Book of Revelation through the exegetic lens of Typology, and thus rejects current fundamentalist doctrines requiring the Rapture to occur before the Second Coming. Merlyn is a long-time fan of the actress Kim Darby and once received a postcard from her from Montana.

 

Coincidence....or not? You be the judge.

 

That isn't relevant. The people running the fundraiser can still refuse him admittance.

 

Anyone can be excluded for cause, signs aren't required. I haven't seen any place that has signs warning patrons to not tip over all the tables, but I suspect anywhere you go you'd be tossed out soon.

 

Merlyn and I inexplicably agree on an issue, which is probably one of the signs that were foretold. Next comes the Tribulation, and then the Lake of Fire.

 

No, telling someone they are not welcomed at a public event is not leaving them alone. That is tantamount to trying to impose one's will on someone else. Leaving them alone is not bothering them when they show up to support an activity. One might be a bit more on the alert, but as long as they follow the expectations of civil norms, no harm, no foul.

 

Stosh

 

Wow. Just Wow.

 

One has the right to refuse service to anyone. I would have told him he had to leave. One can refuse to allow someone within the hall if they aren't wearing shoes, if they have been obnoxious in the past, if they aren't wearing a collared shirt, or certainly, if they raped a boy scout. You may consider me "discriminating" or a "bigot" for thinking that way, but if so, then fine. By your standards I'm a discriminating bigot. My charge to protect the boys in my troop overrides your feelings. If the individual doesn't like it, he can file a suit for unlawful discrimination against Pederastic Americans. Let's see if he's willing to go there. I would have told him he had to leave, no questions and no arguing.

Found this is the business section of the AZ Republic today. Cliff Faraci is a former Scoutmaster and a genuine hero. He also got hosed by his insurance company for being out of network. Worth reading: http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/2014/04/24/injured-good-samaritan-billed-aetna/8129925/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/irving/headlines/20140417-poll-shows-decline-in-support-for-boy-scouts.ece

The Boy Scouts’ image, once defined by idyllic Norman Rockwell paintings, has suffered during the contentious debate over whether gay youths and adults should be allowed to participate in Scouting, according to a public opinion poll.

Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling firm, asked the following question in a telephone survey: “Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of the Boy Scouts of America?â€Â

According to the poll, 59 percent of American adults have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the Boy Scouts. That’s a 6-point drop since last May, and a 14-point drop since February 2012.

The Rasmussen poll did contain some good news for the Boy Scouts: Eighty percent said Scouting is good for young people.

Twenty-one percent of respondents said they had a very favorable opinion of the organization  down from 40 percent two years ago.

Fran Coombs, managing editor of Rasmussen Reports, said the polling data shed no direct light on why an increasing number of Americans seem to be developing negative feelings about the Boy Scouts of America.

But he added, “As a lay person, the only thing I see about Scouts that has risen to the surface is the gay issue.â€Â

BSA leaders voted last May to amend their long-standing membership policy and allow openly gay youths to participate in Scouting. But the new policy still bars openly gay adults from becoming Scoutmasters or serving as paid staff at BSA councils throughout the nation.

No one really liked the new policy. Conservative critics wanted to hold the line against including gays, period. Gay-rights advocates resented the continuing discrimination against gay adults.

BSA executives declined to be interviewed about the poll.

But Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts’ national headquarters in Irving, said: “Our findings indicate that the BSA enjoys very strong good will and is seen as the organization that offers life-changing experiences youth cannot get anywhere else.â€Â

Perhaps the most important question raised by the poll is whether an increasingly unfavorable opinion of the Boy Scouts portends continued membership declines. It’s not an easy question to answer.

Over the past 10 years, BSA’s membership rolls have decreased in some years  usually by about 2 to 4 percent  and remained flat in others, according to Smith. At the end of 2013, BSA counted 2.5 million youth members and 960,000 adult volunteers, a decrease of approximately 6 percent from the reported number in December 2012.

Smith acknowledged that gay-inclusion issues have divided the 103-year-old organization and have been difficult to navigate.

 

May God watch over him and his parents. What a tragedy.

Still mulling over my answer.

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

Just like Bill Clinton was confused when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, or Obama was confused when he said he believed marriage was only between a man or a woman. Those statements went right down the Memory Hole.

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

There were, in fact, members of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s who supported a platform of homosexual rights, but it is probably a good thing from our point of view that their demands weren't met, as many of those supporting homosexual rights during that period in our history also supported the decriminalizing of "consensual" sexual encounters between adult homosexuals and minors. That was a demand that was wisely (mostly) dropped from the manifestos of the later gay rights movement that began with the Stonewall movement.

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

Given the feelings of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King about homosexuality, that would have been unlikely.

What BSA doesn't know is if the giant step of allowing gay men to be leaders will set them on the road to recovery or over a cliff to oblivion.

 

Even if BSA does go over the cliff (my interpretation) they still won't recover any of that lost corporate money until they remove Reverent and/or allow atheist adults and youth to join.

 

It's a fools errand for the BSA to try and appease the left on social issues. The left won't be satisfied until BSA is as empty a shell as Girl Scouts.

Huzzar is correct.

Nice that a moral exemplar like the Disney Corp., which covers up cruelty to animals in its films (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/11/25/regulators-Hollywood-covers-up-plague-of-animal-babuse) and hires known, convicted child molesters to direct its films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva) feels entitled to preach to those of us in fly-over country about morality.

As well you should be, packsaddle.

Not really, Merlyn. I had no idea Disney donated to the BSA. And the post-Eisner Diisney is quite different from the old era.

 

I was always more of a Bigs Bunny man than a Mickey Mouse man, myself.

 

Nice that a moral exemplar like the Disney Corp., which covers up cruelty to animals in its films (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/11/25/regulators-Hollywood-covers-up-plague-of-animal-babuse) and hires known, convicted child molesters to direct its films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva) feels entitled to preach to those of us in fly-over country about morality.

So much for Follow Me Boys 2

I guess the next step for the Mouse would be to immediately stop the sale of all DVDs of FOLLOW ME BOYS and order the original masters destroyed at high noon on Main Street in Disneyland, to prevent the unfortunate misapprehension by the public that the Disney Corporation ever considered the BSA to be an organization that was ever in any way moral or worthy of support, and to then donate an amount equal to all past revenues from sales of the property to whatever LGBTQQ political action committee most loudly applauds their corporate decision, then to ruthlessly Photoshop Fred MacMurray and Kurt Russell out of any production photos taken with Walt Disney in the Disney archives, Oldschool Stalinist-style.

 

(In reality, however, I suspect that the Disney Corporation would give up any revenues from the sales of any property whatsoever only at such time as the funds can be pried loose from the cold, cryogenically frozen dead fingers of Uncle Walt, who is preserved deep in a frosty secret chamber inside Sleeping Beauty's Castle in Disneyland, awaiting the time when technological advances will allow the Disney technicians to implant his brain in an audioanimatronic body to again seize command of his empire. IMO.)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/disney-pulls-boy-scouts-funding/

"Edgy" comics make far more inappropriate comments on cable TV than Phil Robertson ever has, and they get a pass. Miley Cyrus can simulate sexual positions with a married man and smoke a joint onstage and no one gives a crap. Express a view shared by most Christians - that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, even as we acknowledge our own sinful nature (Robertson's stated views, which are reasonable), and the network blows a gasket.

 

The Robertsons were always intended to be the punchline of a joke by A&E. When they became so wildly popular, A&E had no idea what to do other than to ask them to tone down the prayers that ended each show, and to try bleeping words to make it look like they were cussing. The people who are criticizing the Robertsons for "stereotyping" people are happy to ascribe their views to the fact that they and the people of the region they came from are illiterate, inbred, backwards, hookworm-infested hillbillies. Ironic, no?

 

Clearly, the A&E execs who panicked when they got a call from GLAAD are free to do what they want with their network (although their moral outrage did not prevent them from profiting from the "Duck Dynasty" marathon they are currently running.) I think they were surprised at the level of the backlash they received, and the popular support for Robertson. If the A&E insider source quoted by Entertainment Weekly is accurate, they are already backing down from their public posture and will continue to employ Phil Robertson. Underarmour, one of the show's sponsors, has stated that they stand by the Robertsons' right to express their religious viewpoints. Cracker Barrel restaurants, which made a knee-jerk decision to pull all Phil Robertson merchandise from their gift stores, got so much negative feedback from their customers over this last weekend that they did a 180, apologized, and said they will continue to sell the merchandise. Perhaps they realized that there are more heterosexual duck hunters who like camo who go to their restaurant than homosexual political activists.

 

That's huge, as a rebuke to the political power of GLAAD. I can't think of a time when a major corporation has knuckled under to Political Correctness then reversed themselves due to consumer outcry. It will be enlightening to see what happens, as GLAAD's moral authority has been challenged. Do they back off, claim victory and cut their losses, or redouble their efforts to gain the moral high ground and reassert control of the public agenda?

 

So yes, corporations are free to do as they wish within the law, and yes, they will have to deal with the consequences if they make decisions that their customer base finds repugnant.

The difference is that Cyrus was making a lewd performance, and is still receiving awards, in the public spotlight, and raking in the dough. She is positioning herself as a "feminist" for her actions. In the circles in which she travels, that's considered a win. Gottfried, Diller, and Gibson were not making statements about their religious beliefs. (Gibson is a member of a small schismatic sect which broke away from Catholicism, but the views he stated are not part of their church's doctrine and he isn't considered anyone's employee.) Robertson was making an expression of religious belief and is an employee of A&E, and such statements are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as I'm sure his attorneys and A&E's attorneys were aware. A&E was acting outside the scope of the law in making the threat.

I've lived in foreign countries where celebrating Christmas is not the norm, and been offered good wishes based on the predominant religious holiday there. My first thought is not to take offense, but to appreciate the good nature of the greeting, wish them a greeting for their holiday in return - "And a Happy Ramadan to you, also!" . (Why not? I don't celebrate it but that doesn't mean I don't want them to enjoy it.) I don't inform them loftily that I don't celebrate their holiday, or feel the need to inform them what holiday I DO celebrate. I'm aware that the holiday they proclaim exists, and the well-wisher celebrates it.

 

I usually wish someone a "Merry Christmas" unless I know they celebrate Hanukkah (which is long past this year, NeverAnEagle - it happened in November, on Thanksgiving, not in December), in which case I wish them a Happy Hanukkah (Why not? Scripture tells us Jesus celebrated it, too.) If someone wishes to take the time to inform me that they are not religious, don't celebrate Christmas, celebrate the Feast of Sol invictus or Kwanza'a or The High Celebration of the Great Speckled Bird, or something, I just smile and wish them a Happy (fill in the blank), or at the very least, a happy December 25.

 

A holiday greeting should be about spreading good will, not acting like a jackass.

"Edgy" comics make far more inappropriate comments on cable TV than Phil Robertson ever has, and they get a pass. Miley Cyrus can simulate sexual positions with a married man and smoke a joint onstage and no one gives a crap. Express a view shared by most Christians - that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, even as we acknowledge our own sinful nature (Robertson's stated views, which are reasonable), and the network blows a gasket.

 

The Robertsons were always intended to be the punchline of a joke by A&E. When they became so wildly popular, A&E had no idea what to do other than to ask them to tone down the prayers that ended each show, and to try bleeping words to make it look like they were cussing. The people who are criticizing the Robertsons for "stereotyping" people are happy to ascribe their views to the fact that they and the people of the region they came from are illiterate, inbred, backwards, hookworm-infested hillbillies. Ironic, no?

 

Clearly, the A&E execs who panicked when they got a call from GLAAD are free to do what they want with their network (although their moral outrage did not prevent them from profiting from the "Duck Dynasty" marathon they are currently running.) I think they were surprised at the level of the backlash they received, and the popular support for Robertson. If the A&E insider source quoted by Entertainment Weekly is accurate, they are already backing down from their public posture and will continue to employ Phil Robertson. Underarmour, one of the show's sponsors, has stated that they stand by the Robertsons' right to express their religious viewpoints. Cracker Barrel restaurants, which made a knee-jerk decision to pull all Phil Robertson merchandise from their gift stores, got so much negative feedback from their customers over this last weekend that they did a 180, apologized, and said they will continue to sell the merchandise. Perhaps they realized that there are more heterosexual duck hunters who like camo who go to their restaurant than homosexual political activists.

 

That's huge, as a rebuke to the political power of GLAAD. I can't think of a time when a major corporation has knuckled under to Political Correctness then reversed themselves due to consumer outcry. It will be enlightening to see what happens, as GLAAD's moral authority has been challenged. Do they back off, claim victory and cut their losses, or redouble their efforts to gain the moral high ground and reassert control of the public agenda?

 

So yes, corporations are free to do as they wish within the law, and yes, they will have to deal with the consequences if they make decisions that their customer base finds repugnant.