Merlyn_LeRoy

I don't see where it says that at all; it says "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments". To me, that says that the place to propose amendments is at the convention.

Article V doesn't read that way to me: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress" Looks to me like amendments are proposed at the convention.

The scout law, from the SA's website, is: A Scout is to be trusted. A Scout is loyal. A Scout is friendly and considerate. A Scout belongs to the worldwide family of Scouts. A Scout has courage in all difficulties. A Scout makes good use of time and is careful of possessions and property. A Scout has self-respect and respect for others. Nothing in there conflicting with atheism. "The problem is, once you open it up, you end up with atheism crowding out religion, with things like removing God from the promise/oath." Don't forget the part about the sky falling.

The boys may not be too far behind. Wrong. The Girl Guides decided to have only one promise, while the SA has (and has had for quite a long time) various alternate promises; all they did was add a nonreligious one. Seems god is getting in the way of good scouting. True enough in the USA.

If you reject "law from on high," then you can't really accept Baden-Powell's Scout Law, because the idea of law "as given" is rejected. Scout Law is NOT compatible with "personal morality." The Scout Association that B-P created started accepting atheist scouts a week ago.

"The ACLU bullied BSA, got it kicked out of the schools" The BSA wasn't kicked out of schools, they can still meet in public schools on the same basis as any other outside group. What the BSA lost were public schools as chartering organizations, as public schools can't run private clubs that exclude atheists. "Prior to that, the anti-atheism bent of scouting was more or less the Pledge of Allegiance and acknowledging a Duty to God." And excluding every atheist that the BSA knew about, like the Randall twins, Remington Powell, and Darrell Lambert. Since you're new here, I helped Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU stop public school BSA units in 2005, by the way.

"For a little balance, the bible does not justify or condone slavery, it only teaches godly behavior for people in that situation." The bible describes what kinds of slavery is moral: Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. So it's moral to enslave foreigners, and you can also buy the children of slaves as slaves, and make them slaves for life.

I'm not struggling with anything. A scout can be Jewish (and refrain from, say, eating bacon) and do his duty to that god, convert to Christianity and eat bacon (but refrain from, say, polygamy), then convert to Islam and NOT eat bacon but polygamy is now allowed. Or, he could be a Mormon in 1977 and blacks could not become priests. Then in 1978 they could. "Unchangable standards" -- until they change.

Doesn't matter which, god, but god is the one unchangable standard the Oath and Law are held grounded. That's hilarious. An unchangable standard, but it doesn't matter which of various unchangable standards are used. Or even if they're unchangable (as the BSA has never had such a requirement).

Doesn't seem have hurt the Scouting Association in the UK for the past few years.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2014/01/boy_scouts_policy_allowing_gay.html

So what's your opinion of excluding atheist kids from the BSA? L-M is just (finally) following their own stated nondiscrimination policy.

So why not drop the remaining discrimination? "Today's political battle between adults damages those the program and the kids we serve." Like the adults who kick out kids who state they are atheists?

As usual, Skeptic says it's "irrational" for a company to follow its own non-discrimination policy. And as for rubbing things in people's faces, hello Mr. Kettle. Presumably an Xmas kettle.

http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/24254935/article-Lockheed-cuts-ties-with-Boy-Scouts?instance=lead_story_left_column

"What I can't get my mind around is: Why would a non-religious person want to join a religious program?" Because it isn't, really. I'd bet that the number of kids wanting to join the BSA because it's a religious program is about zero. "BSA gets demonized for being religious and so they take it on the chin, but Salvation Army doesn't." No, the BSA gets criticized for excluding people and for inducing public schools to break the law, among other things. The Salvation Army gets criticized too; it looks like you didn't even bother to check.

Wait -- people here are now complaining about having to follow the rules or leave? Oh, I see. A different set of people are now being excluded.

So go ahead and put them up, it's your Constitutional right. You can't actually follow conversations, can you? But why bother?

You're whining seems genuine enough to me, particularly in view of your sophophobic tendencies.

As I recall, you started out bitching about it; if you had "gotten over it", you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

You might have noticed that atheists ARE doing something about it, and some people here (and out there in the real world) have been bitching about atheists doing something about it.

The hypocritical part is where you calling people "assholes" makes you an asshole, and deserving of having your first amendment rights ignored.

No different than religious organizations losing non-profit status. What are you babbling about? If any non-profit (religious or not) refuses to follow the requirements to have nonprofit status, including not endorsing political candidates, they, of course, lose their non-profit status. Or they can forgo it and endorse anyone they like. Or they can challenge the law in court, something that both American Atheists and many churches would like, even though they are on opposite sides, because they both think their side will win. Because being required to follow the law is SO just like rape threats, eh?

OK... In 1992, Herb Silverman applied to be a notary public in South Carolina. Being an atheist, he crossed out 'so help me god' on his application. Out of about 30,000 applications, his was the only one rejected, and it was rejected only because he crossed out the unconstitutional religious test oath. Now, even though it had been established by the supreme court thirty years earlier in Torcaso v. Watkins that requiring 'so help me god' was an unconstitutional religious test, the state of South Carolina decided to spend $300,000 and five years fighting the ACLU lawsuit trying to deny Mr. Silverman his application. Last year, Jessica Ahlquist informed school officials of Cranston High School West in New Jersey that the prayer banner in the school auditorium was unconstitutional and needed to be removed. After a lawsuit, and numerous death threats and rape threats to Jessica Ahlquist which required a police escort for a time, the courts found that, yes, it was a violation. You'll notice that in both of these cases the courts agreed with the atheist, yet they were hardly treated fairly. There are plenty more stories like these. You might understand why I'm a bit jaded about Christians complaining about losing "their" public park spots for holiday decorations after having had them unchallenged for 60 years and finally being treated equally. Yeah, my heart really bleeds for ya...

I can give you the back story to that one, KDD. Chester County isn't discriminating against atheists, they're discriminating against assholes. A few years back the local atheists lobbied to have their tree put next to the Christmas tree and menorah. That request was granted as an equal access type deal. Unfortunately, the atheists chose to decorate their tree with cards that explicitly mocked the beliefs of the people that put up the two religious symbols. First Huzzar, you are mischaracterizing what they put up; it was a tree with book covers. This has a list from 2009: http://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Tree-of-Knowledge-Online-Book-20091.pdf Here's 2008: http://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Tree-of-Knowledge-Master-Booklist.pdf Now, when it comes to free speech, "offensiveness" isn't something the government can decide on. Otherwise, any bible display would get objected to by atheists for calling them fools, right? The County, rightly IMO, concluded that the atheist group had lied in their petition and did not want to express any type of good wishes for the season/winter/life-in-general, but instead wanted a platform to denigrate religious people. Even if that's what they wanted, it's not constitutional to limit their free speech rights on such grounds. For subsequent years they've been told to take a hike and, quite frankly, I hope they're kept out until such time that they can grow up and act with some grace. Like people who call other people "assholes"? Should such people have their free speech limited, hypocrite?