AZMike

"Lately," of course, things have changed. And I've seen lots of Christians whine when they lose their special privileges." I think most people "whine," or complain, to use a less value-laden term, when their rights are taken from them. Read any history books? You mean back when heretics were burned? Or just driven out? Or maybe just when I started this thread 3 years ago and wrote "25,000 fine in Ireland, death in Pakistan"? Like the Albigensians? They were executed - by the state, not the Church - largely because their repudiation of oaths and all cvil authority represen

"Ah, but that's why I think they need to be challenged at every opportunity; religions are so used to not being criticized, you end up with things like laws against blasphemy and laws that say praying is sufficient medical treatment. No other class of ideas gets such kowtowing, which makes society worse." Except, of course, for the obsession in left-wing political circles for same-sex marriage, where you get laws requiring Catholic schools to host gay clubs in Canada, or the U.S., obsession with sex without consequences, where you get the U.S. government requiring Catholic businesses to p

"That in a nutshell is the essential conflict between religion and empiricism." There is no conflict between religion and empiricism. Empiricism has nothing to say about hypermundane claims. Two different spheres of knowledge. If anything, religion is more congenial to a religious view than a strictly materialist view, as that contains its own self-defeaters from an empirical viewpoint.

Sorry, forgot to post the map to which I referred. It's late and I'm tired. http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

"But LOOK AT WHO CAN REFRAIN FROM HAVING THEIR CHILDREN VACCINATED: the religious. There are religious exemptions in all states except California, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only about 20 states allow some kind of nonreligious exemption. This religious-only exemption is probably unconstitutional, by the way (see Welsh v. United States)." Looking at this map, I see numerous examples of non-religious (philosophical and medical) exemptions. So even an atheist goofball who doesn't want his kid vaccinated can find a way. If we look at some of the loudest proponents of non-vaccination, the

AZMike writes: Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. Merlyn: Nope. Sorry, you can't claim that, because a religion does X, that X is dependent in any way on that religion. That's a non-sequitur. I'm pretty sure God would like you to read the lines below what I wrote instead of taking the comment out of context, Merlyn... You are claiming a right to a worldview that requires certain postulates that only make sense if one accepts a non-materialist world-vew. Can't have it both ways, Merl. M

"Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions. I tend to disagree. So do you feel that non-religious folks can't experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc.? " I hope you do more than tend to disagree, but you misunderstood. Even if non-religious (which is not the same as atheist or agnostic), you do experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc., BECAUSE you are something more than what a materialist, non-religious POV posits you are, i.e., a flesh-bag of chemical reactions.

"I'll use the concept in the sense that I've seen it expressed by persons in these forums. In that sense it is access to medical care that is either paid for by tax dollars, or subsidized by tax dollars, or actually owned and run by government. This would, I guess, include any care that results from a variety of welfare programs, medicare, medicaid. Things like that. And, of course, the new law...that probably goes with the other stuff. I have read references to all these things at different times in the sense that they, to a variety of extents, are 'socialized'. Do you support these?"

Merlyn: "Deferring to religion isn't the only way to be opposed to partial birth abortions and eugenics." Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. The platform of the morality you argue from is one that recognizes the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human being. A non-religious viewpoint - that we are fulminating flesh-bags full of percolating chemicals slogging around with some sparks going off inside that may or may not offer the flesh-bag a picture of an objective reality outside the confines of said fles

Depends on what you mean by "socialized medicine."

packsaddle: "AZMike, I certainly do credit religion with a modicum of emotion surrounding the abortion topic." Well, duh. packsaddle: "But with respect to eugenics, do you really think that is a result of the absence of religion?" The absence of orthodox Judaeo-Christianity? Oh, heck yeah. The absence of that thing that likes to call itself religion, or spirituality, or whatever, but is really just modernity wrapped in religious garb? Well, that thing does think very highly of eugenics, or abortion, or "Marriage Equality," or any other kind of claptrap. Eugenics was indeed

"Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor." Not deferring to religion gets you things like partial birth abortions and eugenics.

Can't have a tug-of-war 'thout someone at the other end of the rope.

"Personally I've never heard of the "sexual liberation movement." What is it? What I have heard of is gay people saying "please stop discriminating against us."" Unless of course you quietly express your own beliefs, or simply pray in their presence:

Some of the current U.S. military academy cadet class demographics, broken down by (among other things) Scouting involvement and Eagle/Gold Award members - http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf'>http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf (They're from Paul Ryan's site, but most congressmen have this on their sites.)

"Getting back to New Jersey State Senator Ray Lesniak -- who by the way I have met and who is a very-long-time member of the New Jersey legislature -- I don't think you (AzMike) should be throwing around terms like "NAMBLAesque". (NAMBLA, if anyone doesn't know, is the "North American Man-Boy Love Association.") The term "gay boys" is perhaps not one that lands gently on the ear, and I probably would not use it, but since a "boy" technically is someone under the age of 18, a person under 18 who is gay could, I guess, be called a "gay boy." I don't think the senator meant it in a "creepy" way a

It would depend on the content of the letter, I suppose. If you have the courage of your convictions, and state that you no longer wish to be an Eagle Scout because of their evil, discriminatory ways, fine then. You have crossed the Rubicon, burnt the ships, and made your choice. I don't agree with your opinion, but you had the guts to renounce something you used to be a part of. National should send them a polite letter honoring their wishes and informing them that any record of them being an Eagle or Scout will be expunged from the records, and the medal you sent in will be destroyed.

Chuck Norris has played a bad guy, in "Way of the Dragon" opposite Bruce Lee. And its nice that he will send out Eagle Scout congratulatory letters.

Sounds like they are just reiterating the current policy: Don't ask, don't tell.

That activity book has a really creepy cover.

Also, some investigative reporting on the possible use of Ernst and Young CEO James Turley as a stalking horse by the Obama White House to oppose BSA policies, by none other than...Chuck Norris: http://www.freedomcongress.org/america/2012/06/is-obama-creating-a-pro-gay-boy-scouts-of-america/

"I was informed that it is cheaper, and sturdier, to take the current BSHB, got to Staples, and get them to spiral bind it. " Huh. Would that be sturdier than the current spiral bound edition, which seems even flimsier than the regular bound one? If so, I may try it with a test copy.

No, and not relevant to that, but looking around on his website I found the following interesting info on the # of Boy Scouts in the USAF Academy Class of 2015 (26% of cadets were Boy or Girl Scouts, 12% were Eagle Scouts or GSA Gold Award. http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafa_2015.pdf In the West Point Class of 2015, out of 1,261 cadets, 445 were Scouting participants and 160 won the Eagle Scout or Gold Award. http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usma_2015.pdf That doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread, I just thought it was interesting

Hal Crawford: "How is the phrase "gay boys" "NAMBLAesque"? Please explain." It sounds creepy as all get-out. It sounds like the title of a porn DVD that would be found in a search warrant of that creepy guy who lives down the street from you. It sounds like a pay-website whose server is in some central Asian nation where the FBI can't find them. Dude. RemeberSchiff - sorry, I didn't know. Was Glenn not a Boy Scout and claimed to be?

I also note that a Democrat NJ state senator has refused a BSA honor because they do not accept "gay boys" (his NAMBLAesque words, not mine) : The Boy Scouts of Americas policies on openly-gay members have frustrated gay rights activists and liberals for quite some time. Recently, the organizations decision to continue its ban on homosexuals has added fuel to critics fire. And a New Jersey state senators decision not to accept an award from the organization due to these issues is likely to further stoke the debate. Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) is refusing to accept a nomination fo