Merlyn_LeRoy

Just because a troop is sponsored by a Lutheran church does not make it a Lutheran troop.

Just because I call a unit a Scientology unit does not mean I'm implying it only allows Scientologists.  It's chartered by the church of Scientology.

I'm going to convert to Scientology just to make BSA's head spin on the whole "God" and religion issue.

 

Go Thetans!!! Beat Xenu!!! 

There have been Scientology units for years:

Troop 0313 Church Of Scientology

210 S Fort Harrison Ave  

Clearwater,FL,33756

Troop 0555 Delphi Academy

11341 Brainard Ave  

Lake View Terrace,CA,91342

http://www.delphitroop555.org/troop555/

Also, just as a comment, I recall a few years back how nearly everyone insisted that a Taoist who is also an atheist wouldn't ever have any problems being in the BSA.

Perhaps Freethought could ask for a recruiting session and if they are rejected, sue for discrimination?  What are their membership requirements?  Agreement with their lack of belief?  Could William Penn  and is "free thinking"  join?

Well, they certainly could try suing for similar recruiting opportunities, but that would also mean every church in the area and Satanists would have to get the same recruiting access.

The Freethought Society is a chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has no requirements apart from the annual $40 membership, and presumably still being alive, though Christopher Hitchens is an "In Memoriam" member of the FFRF honorary board.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/freethought-society-challenges-octorara-on-boy-scout-policy/article_43af23dc-e1ea-11e4-b04a-7b40cf8159d8.html

And the prize for completely missing the point goes to:

Charlie Rogers, scout executive with the Chester County Council of Boy Scouts of America, said no parents or Scouts from Octorara or other area troops have made discrimination complaints to the council.

“Our programs are open to all kids regardless of sexual orientation,†he said.

Quote Deleted by Packsaddle

Lemmings don't actually suicide off cliffs, that's a myth.

We could judge people by their behavior rather than by some arbitrary classification.

My irony meter just exploded.

You are also probably Politically Correct if you feel judges can't be adult leaders in the BSA because you might be prejudiced against gays when on the bench' date=' but feel that atheist judges could not be prejudiced against religious defendants,[/quote']

 

An unbalanced analogy -- an atheist judge is not necessarily a member of a private club that says god-believers can't be the best kinds of citizens. If he WAS a member of a private club that said god-believers can't be the best kinds of citizens, wouldn't it be reasonable to question his neutrality?

This is just the whining of people who can't stand open discussion.

I'm fine with open discussion; you might notice I don't hold back my opinion, either.

Seriously, skeptic's constant whining about "PC" is ridiculous.

This is just the whining of people who can't stand being criticized.

If you are not using "discrimination" to mean behavior that is unlawful' date=' then I truly missed your point.[/quote']

 

You can't read. When I write "discrimination", I mean ""discrimination". If I mean unlawful discrimination, I write "unlawful discrimination".

 

Yes. Every single Buddhist and Jain in BSA is an self-acknowledged atheist' date=' publically acknowledged as such by WOSM and has NOT been kicked out by BSA for their atheism.[/quote']

 

Wrong. First, Jainism isn't atheistic -- Hemant Mehta writes the very popular Friendly Atheist blog, and he was raised a Jain, and no, it isn't atheistic, because he changed from that to atheism.

 

Second, you aren't required to be an atheist to be a Buddhist. It isn't a tenet.

 

So third, they aren't necessarily atheists.

 

And finally, the BSA has stated many, many times, including in court, that atheists can't be members of the BSA. They've never said that atheists who are also Buddhists, or Taoists, or Jewish, or anything else allows membership.

 

The ruling was in two cases in which the local BSA councils were being sued for alleged civil rights violations. Pretty famous cases. .Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670, 952 P.2d 218, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 (1998)(sexual orientation) and Randall v. Orange County Council, 17 Cal.4th 736, 952 P.2d 261, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998)(religious requirement). These wins by BSA were widely publicized, especially within the ACLU. The BSA councils were found not to be subject to the law.

That's what I said. The BSA wasn't considered a business establishment under the Unruh act, so their discrimination wasn't even addressed.

Did you have a point?

Buddhists are atheists. If BSA didn;t know that, I pointed it out to them in 2007.

And the BSA probably pays less attention to you as I do here.

For many years, It has been pointed out in theFundamental Principles of The World Organization of the Scout Movement, of which BSA is a member.

 

Buddhists are welcomed by BSA since 1926, as are atheistic Jains and Hindus. (Labeling them as "non-theistic" changes nothing.)

 

Of course I have no examples of their being kicked out.

(deleted by Packsaddle...fair warning)

"Do you have any actual examples of acknowledged atheist Buddhists not being kicked out by the National BSA?"

See that --->NOT<--- in there?

Your narrative is factually incorrect. Only some atheists are excluded, not the entire class.

And since I've clearly stated the same thing, I don't know what "narrative" you're referring to. But since you read my previous question as if I had said the exact opposite, that's hardly surprising.

Saying "the BSA kicks out atheists" is like saying they kick out child molesters. It's clear they don't kick out all of either group.

I was trying to distinguish between what are sincerely-help ethical or moral judgments and the law (as it evolves).

The KKK seems pretty sincere. There are racist religions too, like the Christian Identity movement.

I was not asserting that the two terms have the same meaning. However, because "invidious discrimination" (AKA "invidious intent") has repeatedly (but not consistently) been said to be an element that must be proved for discrimination to be unlawful, it does not seem to be particularly useful to say that discrimination is "invidious" when that conduct has been held to be lawful, even Constitutionally protected.. Obviously, the authorities in California do not agree, but I am not in California and they are not the last word.

Like I said, the judges in California clearly think the BSA's discrimination is covered by their ethical standards.

(Beyond federal decisions, please note that California's civil rights law was unanimously held by the California Supreme Court in Curran and Randall not to apply to Boy Scouting.)

Because it wasn't considered a business establishment under the Unruh act. That had nothing to do with the BSA's discrimination.

Even if we disregard your statement that BSA allows Buddhist members, the objective reality is that BSA does not exclude all acknowledged atheists.

I don't know of a single case of an "acknowledged atheist" Buddhist being allowed in the BSA that National knows about; any particular Buddhist could be an atheist, but none are required to be atheists. Do you have any actual examples of acknowledged atheist Buddhists not being kicked out by the National BSA?

Hey M'; can you please give us a rest from your excessive pride in causing issues with BSA and public schools.

Oh, *I* didn't cause any issues, that was the BSA's dishonesty and bigotry all the way.

We have heard this over and over for way too long. You certainly are not impressing anyone, only making yourself seem vindictive and spiteful. Of course, I know you could really care less; but it is simply tiresome.

I assume you're against any sort of legal action in this case? After all, you always, always, always criticize atheists for suing the government when they think their rights are unlawfully infringed, so I'm sure you'd criticize any judge or lawyer that attempts a lawsuit over this, right?

Hey, I wondered when the BSA would stop chartering units to public schools. Turns out, they wouldn't until they were forced to.

I did find that wording interesting until I read more. The change was based on a set of public hearings on the topic. IMHO, this is the result of ugly activism as we see on this board. Yelling. Insults. Slanderous statements. It's not about a scouter not being able to be impartial as a judge.

 

I think the use of the word "invidious" is tied more to the definition: "(of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others."

 

I'm betting judges heard plenty of angry opinions at those hearings, similar to the ugly words we've heard on this board. IMHO, that's one reason the word "invidious" appears.

Hey Fred, I know you won't answer, but you might want to look up how some people on this board have responded to me when I point out that the BSA practices religious discrimination and how my government can't support that.

People discriminate all the time

People equivocate all the time, too.

Well' date=' I hope I am capable of logic. Logic tells me that since BSA's discrimination has been found lawful, it is not, as you repeatedly claim, "invidious." It's just discrimination, which is generally lawful.[/quote']

 

Which means these judges don't know what their own rules mean. But I think they do.

 

I fail to see the logic of your question. The courts have not found BSA's discrimination to be unlawful, hence it is not "invidious." At least that is so for now.

 

No, for now, judges can't be members of the BSA. That's what the judges actually say it means.

 

Tell me more about this club. Is it restricted to Catholics, such as Knights of Columbus?

 

No. A Restricted club excluded Jews, only.

 

If I am equivocating, it's as a professional, but I do not believe that I am. I am merely attempting, as best I can, to follow points of law that you ignore.seem to discomfort you.

 

I'm not the one saying judges got their own rules wrong. You are.

 

What I thought I clearly said is that only unlawful discrimination is "invidious." If I was not clear enough, I am now.

 

You were quite clear. You're wrong.

 

That would, of course, depend on whether it was invidious - that is, unlawful.

 

Ridiculous. The ethics rules would SAY "illegal" if they MEANT "illegal". They don't.

 

You still haven't even produced a definition of "invidious" that requires illegality.

 

You have noted that BSA admits atheists, remember? On this forum. Buddhists.

 

And that they throw out atheists, too.

 

The ruling could not be clearer. The California Supreme Court, as a matter of state law, found conduct which the federal courts found lawful, to be "invidious."

 

Because "invidious" and "illegal" are two different words that mean two different things.

You believe "invidious discrimination" as used by courts includes lawful discrimination? We have court cases ordering the end of legal discrimination?

Are you incapable of any logic at all?

Not all discrimination is illegal discrimination. Not all discrimination is invidious discrimination.

Why do you suppose that every example given in the quotes is a "protected class" as to whom discrimination is presently unlawful?

Like religion? Does that mean you agree that the BSA practices "invidious discrimination", because religious discrimination is illegal in some cases?

Not a mention of "invidious discrimination" against Browns fans in Pittsburgh or discrimination on the basis of objectively-determined ability or "invidious discrimination" by the Masons who require professed belief in a Supreme Being for membership.

Wait, are you saying a Restricted club that excludes Jews isn't "invidious discrimination"?

Those who use "invidious" as a synonym for "I don't like it" are certainly free to express their dislikes' date=' but they do not advance legal analysis.[/quote']

 

Neither does your amateur equivocation that the only illegal discrimination is "invidious discrimination".

 

Would you say the KKK's discrimination is "invidious discrimination"?

Would you say the KKK's discrimination is illegal?

 

But' date=' as you yourself pointed out, BSA allows atheists as youth and adult members[/quote']

 

Not really, no. They go to court to throw out atheists, remember?

 

By the way, you'll notice that the people actually involved in this (California judges) seem pretty clear that BSA membership is now off-limits for California judges. I'll believe they know the law and their own judicial ethics code better than either of us. The BSA is out for their invidious (albeit legal) discrimination.

Hmmm, let me get this straight.

 

Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists and homosexuals.

 

The State of California discriminates against Boy Scouts of America.

 

Is this a chicken and egg thing or is it the pot calling the kettle black thing?

 

Stosh

It's an equivocation thing, on your end. The state of California also discriminates against the KKK because of the KKK's discrimination.

​You know, membership standards and all that. Their's includes not belonging to organizations that could bring the impartiality of the courts into question, like organizations that say gays are "unclean".

Also' date=' it seems like as long as we allow godly gays the justices would back off. Or, Merlyn, did I skim too quickly, and is the court also up in arms about the antipathy towards athiests?[/quote']

 

Judges often don't address further issues if earlier issues decide the issue, so the BSA's religious discrimination wasn't even considered once their anti-gay discrimination settled the issue. I and other atheists would be certain to bring it up if the BSA admits adult gays but still excludes atheists.

 

As used in the law' date=' "invidious discrimination" seems to usually means intentional illegal discrimination[/quote']

 

Nothing in your quotes specifies "illegal discrimination", just "discrimination".

No' date=' I'm using it 100% right. "... person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people ... ". You show up only to sow discord and start the same old arguments over and over again.[/quote']

 

Wrong.

I actually argue. Trolls just start arguments and stand back and watch.

 

And this isn't a same old argument, it's something new. The BSA's discrimination continues to have adverse consequences.

 

You don't participate or add value on any other topic. Your value is sowing discord on the topic to achieve your objective. That is trolling.

 

Nope, I actually argue. I also pointed out how it was illegal to have public schools charter units, way back when I first started posting here. Not many people believed me back then.

 

Because you were not posting that action on this board. You sow a single path of discord and only reappear when it's convenient to your agenda.

 

Because all I'm interested in is the BSA's discrimination, particularly when that illegally infringes on other people.

 

I suggest you whine harder.

 

That is sad and to brag of it is sick.

 

See, this is exactly why I fight bigots like yourself. It's "sad" to stop institutionalize discrimination against atheists by public schools, because all the good, god-believing kids lose out.

 

Cry me a river.

 

You are spending a life knocking down a very very good organization to achieve an objective.

 

The only times the BSA has moved to treat atheists as anything other than despised second-class citizens is after they lose legal cases, such as when they lost the Chicago case that forced the city to stop chartering Explorer posts. A few months later, Exploring was moved into Learning for Life so government entities could use it again. And the program didn't need to change one whit, because excluding gays and atheists had nothing to do with the program -- the only reason for the BSA to exclude them was bigotry at the highest levels.

 

I will stop replying to you as it won't help.

 

Intellectual coward.

Of course, when idiots DO try to "enforce" their religion, they get sent to prison:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london

Well, I thought part of this was trying to figure out what the BSA means by whatever it's saying this week, and that part reads as if the youth has to follow the same religion as his parents.

Now of course that's a dumb interpretation, but the BSA also says you have to have some belief in a god/higher power yet admits Buddhists.