Merlyn_LeRoy

And that's the "fault" of atheists, how?

IT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WOULD INSULT THE CHURCH MEMBERS ON THE BB THAT SAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.. Your group did not need to do that, just sue them if you are going to sue them.. The atheist group DIDN'T KNOW THE BILLBOARD WAS ON A CHURCH'S PROPERTY WHEN THEY WENT TO A BILLBOARD COMPANY AND BOUGHT BILLBOARD SPACE. Plus, THEY NEVER SUED THE CHURCH FOR ANYTHING, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGAL ISSUE AT STAKE. The billboard company moved the atheist billboard to a different one. Are atheists supposed to be clairvoyant now? Seems a bit out of character. Well the Senior citizen discount, or child rates must be discrimination on age also. Yes, it is. However, it is legal discrimination (in the case of restaurants) because the civil rights act does not prohibit it. It does prohibit religious discrimination. So what? Atheists have the same first amendment rights as anyone else This is marginalizing the fact that you feel your first amendment rights give you a right to harass and insult anyone you like as long as you find a legal way to do so.. Harassment can be a tort, but yes, the first amendment gives everyone the right to insult anyone. Want some links from religious billboards that specifically insult atheists? There are plenty. I never stated these people (the fringe group) were criminals, I stated they were antagonistic and would want into BSA simply to find ways to push to remove any religious tradition from the BSA curriculum Yeah, that's the way you like to make up motives for atheists, instead of what they actually do. Perhaps your argument it on the grounds of "civil rights" in being discriminated against due to religious beliefs because you are now a member of the BSA, and can not attend the Troops plans to go Christmas caroling at a nearby hospital, or whatever.. Perhaps you continue to make up arguments out of whole cloth in order to denigrate atheists. The BSA, even if it admits atheists, is still a private organization, and that would not be actionable. But you just have to make up scenarios where you can complain about atheists. In fact I think that was the issue of the women who joined a group with religious ties, then complained about her civil rights being violated because her and (son? daughter?) were given the option to sit quietly, or walk away from the group for the (prayer? oath?) rather then be able to enjoy the whole program.. Yeah, there's a reference I can check. Finding a way to legally push your agenda to be intolerant of other groups doesn't change the negative effect, and the fact that people who stoop to this type of rationalization as to why they are morally right to harass groups they dislike is not people welcomed in the BSA.. So if atheists sue over something and win, meaning the atheists were in the right and defending their civil rights, they aren't welcome in your view. I guess they're too uppity and should know their place. By the way, the rogue GG troop has agreed to use the new, official oath. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ular-oath.html PS: I also started a thread back in June about the UK scouting association announcing they will admit atheists, but it looks like it's one of the threads that was lost with the new forum changes. The google cache is here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7dGNxRGVVKgJ:www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/384107-the-telegraph-is-reporting-that-uk-scouting-will-allow-atheists+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

As to your comments as it is always on government property, not public.. I appreciate that is the main intent, but even that goes a little beyond civil disagreement, because most the time, it isn't enough to win, but there is a lot of finding ways to try to use the win to attempt to humiliate the looser. What are you talking about? Disputes over religious symbols on government property are typically handled by sending a letter citing legal precedents to whoever is in charge of that property, with court cases later if it comes to that. Where's this "humiliation"? It's more in your face, insulting and harassing things, that don't just pertain to government places.. Well again, some examples would help. Take this article. http://www.christianpost.com/news/oh...t-group-56893/ This is by an organized atheist group, not just some yo-yo.. Although individual yo-yo's can do their own damage, and in BSA we usually get the individuals.. I know you can say "Well they should pay taxes.." or something.. Of course they should pay taxes that are due. But there are other things.. Putting their anti-religious message on the Churches Billboard?? (I don't know how it got their, they lied about who they were and what they were going to put up, or they put it up in the middle of the night..) Neither of those. Now you're just making things up in order to try and slam the atheists who put up the billboard. Here's more info. The second link even explains why the story you linked to is slanted against the atheist group: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/06/27/atheist-billboard-in-columbus-ohio-taken-down-after-church-complains/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/10/02/church-commits-tax-fraud-and-the-christian-post-blames-atheists-for-pointing-it-out/ I would imagine something legal or the church could have pressed charges.. This I have heard similar stories maybe not on the property, but on the lawn across the street or next door to.. So what? Atheists have the same first amendment rights as anyone else. the Lost Cajun Kitchen, a small, mom-and-pop restaurant located in Pennsylvania. The restaurant made news, because it offered a discount on Sundays to anyone bringing in a church bulletin, and a particular atheist decided to sue them over it. Little did the restaurant owners know just how good that action would be for business! Private business, not government.. Ok Atheists can't take advantage of the discount, but neither can you take a senior discount if it is for seniors, You can take advantage of a AAA discount unless you are a AAA member... So... What??? Because offering a discount that discriminates on the basis of religion violates the civil rights act of 1964, just like a restaurant that had, say, an extra $5 cover charge to serve Muslims. It's illegal and has been illegal for decades. It isn't too much to ask public accommodations to follow the law.

Sorry, it's the majority I would welcome and the fraction I would want to make sure the BSA planned for how to deal with in a pro-active manner. Uh, that doesn't contradict what I wrote. I pointed out you keep bringing up atheists you don't want in the BSA, even in this thread, which is about an atheist being excluded by people who refuse to allow her to take the official promise. I haven't said one way or the other about which group of atheists is larger. Now you could have spent all this time explaining to me, what the difference is between removing religious symbols from any public place, "Any public place" includes e.g. churches. I haven't heard of any atheist groups wanted to remove religious symbols from privately owned buildings. Public property like city hall, yes. yet these very same people would have no interest to join BSA... So if they have no interest in joining, why do you keep bringing up "people who want to join a group simply to create a hostile environment for all"? What people are you talking about? Or if these same people did join, why would consider entering BSA a place that religious tradition would be tolerated.. I can't really parse that, but if you're referring to people who want to remove "religious symbols from any public place", like I said, I don't know of any. Again, what people are you talking about? You haven't pointed to any specific people. If you can only rant and rave about my perception, but have no way to educate me as to why my perception is wrong. Of what? As far as I can tell, you've been ranting and raving about straw men atheists. The atheist in the Girl Guide story isn't trying to remove anything, she just wants to take the official promise The atheists in the Santa Monica story from your 2011 link wanted equal access to a public forum. For the previous 60 years, it was only open to a religious group for an annual nativity display. The city council could clearly see that they couldn't keep doing that, so they created a lottery system.

fred johnson, you can't seem to read English. I don't feel that to respect the beliefs of atheists means that one must disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists. However, you might notice that I am not claiming that I never disrespect non-atheists. I'm saying that to respect atheists does not require that non-atheists be disrespected. If I hurt your feelings by not respecting people like yourself who believe in invisible superbeings, and who subscribe to metaphysics laid out in the iron-age before people had even figured out that the earth rotates, that's your problem.

You continue to be a true representative of the BSA's attitude towards atheists.

Gosh Merlyn! Please figure out why you think I'm disrespectful and a Hypocrite, I've already told you a number of times; you're the one who needs to figure things out. Yes, that statement is correct and truthful the big word in that statement being FRACTION. And you keep pointing out that fraction that you just can't stand. Over and over again. 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'm saying you repeatedly point out atheists that you don't want in the BSA. Over and over and over and over. I don't care that you would allow some fraction of the "right kind" of atheists. I have atheist friends "Some of my best friends are atheists." Sorry, I don't like people who want to join a group simply to create a hostile environment for all. I've never heard of any atheist who wants to do this with the BSA or any other group. Paul Trout didn't want to do that. The Randall twins didn't. Or Mark Welsh, Remington Powell, Brad Seabourn, or Darrell Lambert.

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. --------------------

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?

Here's my first reply to you in this thread: 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: See? You need to quote something I wrote to support your assertion. But instead, in response to the above, you quoted YOURSELF: 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.

I asked you to prove either definition, you have proved neither.. Therefore you are still a liar. I've already pointed out that you disrespected atheists while demanding that atheists respect you: [Gays] 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.. As to this: Yes I have a problem with an organization deciding to change it's oath or it's rules to cater to only one part of it's group, denying the rights of others in the group. Take that up with the UK Girl Guides, it's their decision. For some reason you seem to want to blame atheists for it. You are still a liar for calling me disrespectful... Sorry, you don't get to choose what other people find disrespectful. You can say you don't find it disrespectful, but you can't say I don't find it disrespectful.

Prove to me where I have made a false appearance of virtue or religion? I didn't say you had. You DO realize that a hypocrite does not have to satisfy both definitions, don't you? And you were being disrespectful of atheists while simultaneously demanding respect from atheists earlier in this thread at post #7. Disrespectful ??!! To be one of the very few to support your group at all??? Yes. It's like someone being in favor of integration, but who also keeps pointing out blacks who have broken the law in news articles and saying how these wouldn't be the right sorts of black members, and repeated harping on how blacks have to be 'respectful' of the white members. Such backhanded support doesn't look like support after a while; to me, it looks a lot more like scapegoating and painting with a broad brush after so many occurrences. ...the example of UK Girl Guides accepting in atheists and then requesting they change the oath to accommodate them as if they are now the only group that is worth consideration... The UK Girl Guides decided to change their promise. Do you have a problem with an organization deciding to change their own promise? This news article was about a unit that isn't even allowing an atheist adult leader take the official promise. That's not the atheist's fault. https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/syste...s_promise.aspx Girlguiding is to strengthen its commitment to being open to all girls by updating the Promise that girls and volunteers make when they join the organisation. The decision comes after a consultation involving nearly 44,000 people of all ages from inside and outside guiding. ... The updated Promise will ask members to ‘be true to myself and develop my beliefs’. This will replace the previous phrase ‘to love my God’. The change was made after the consultation showed that different words were needed to include all girls, of all faiths and none, more explicitly in the Promise. ... ‘However, we knew that some people found our Promise confusing on this point and that it discouraged some girls and volunteers from joining us. We hope that the new wording will help us reach out to girls and women who might not have considered guiding before – so that even more girls can benefit from everything guiding can offer. ‘Guiding believes in having one Promise that is a clear statement of our core values for all our members to commit to. We hope that our new Promise will allow all girls – of all faiths and none – to understand and feel proud of their commitment.’ ... The decision to review the Promise was made by Girlguiding’s members and Board of Trustees in 2011, and reflects the charity’s commitment to evolve in line with girls’ changing views. The Promise has been changed 11 times in the organisation’s history, most recently in 1994. Recent and ongoing Girlguiding and ChildWise research has indicated clearly that girls hold a wide variety of beliefs about a god. According to the 2013 Girls’ Attitudes Survey, 37 per cent of girls do not believe in a god, 13 per cent believe in a god at some times but not at others, and 26 per cent currently believe in a god. The Promise consultation took place online and face-to-face at Rainbow, Brownie, Guide and Senior Section meetings. Additional focus groups were run among girls from harder-to-reach communities to ensure that their views were included in the findings.

Yes. I indicated where you were being disrespectful of atheists, and called you a hypocrite for simultaneously demanding respect from atheists. I responded to something you actually wrote, which is how I conduct a genuine argument. I didn't assume I knew what you were thinking, attempt to tell you what you were thinking, and get it wrong.

If you don't like it from others, stop doing it to others. That's funny, considering you started it off by trying to tell me what I felt instead of asking me.

At the same time the ban on Sharia law was going on, not even an honorable mention, Not at the same time. Hemant's post was April 3, 2013, and the Sharia law ban came up in May. Now, if you'd like to read about me defending religious rights, you can try here: http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/21457-gov-rick-perry-violates-the-religious-rights-of-children Here's where I mention see-you-at-the-pole is legal: http://old.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=188951&p=10 You did not disprove my assumptions. You don't have to assume; if you assume and get my opinions wrong, I'll just call you a liar, and you'll just start whining again. What you OUGHT to do is ASK ME WHAT MY OPINION IS, instead of making all your stupid, false assumptions. That's what reasonable people do.

OK you got me, and I am adult enough to admit it, unlike you. I admit being wrong when I'm wrong, but if someone has the gall to try and tell me what I FEEL and gets it wrong, I certainly don't. Your viewpoint is no better then NC trying to legislate a state religion and make illegal Sharia law. Now I am sure you would applaud them outlawing a religion Oh look, another lie from moosetracker telling me what I think, even though he's wrong. In fact, I even posted about NC legislators trying to establish a state religion at Hemant Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" blog: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...tate-religion/ Search for my real name, Brian Westley (which has been established in this forum earlier), and you'll find this. The first line is from Hemant's article, the second is mine: Brian Westley • 5 months ago Voters should remember that when the next elections come around. The hell with that; impeach these totalitarian idiots. Stop lying about me. In your case, that's about the same as "stop typing about me".

Wow!!! Merlin, That is a HUGE LIE. Here's the sort of thing I'm referring to: http://old.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=334890 You started the above thread, with an article that is about atheists and has no direct link to scouting: Personally, I am one of the few who think some day athiest may have a place in BSA, but the do have a slimmer chance then the homosexual issue.. They have a "never" chance with this type of attitude, because they are not respectful or reverent of other peoples beliefs.. So right there, you posted an article about atheists to whine about how these nasty sort of atheists aren't the right sort to be in the BSA. I remember commenting on a thread started by someone else that had an article about atheists who put up mean-spirited crap in the middle of religious Christmas display on some town lawn.. YOU started that thread, not someone else; check the link. And it had no connection to scouting. You posted it just so you could complain about some atheists that you didn't want in the BSA, ever. I will still defend that stance. Disrespect is disrespect.. No matter which side started it.. But you have no problem disrespecting me.

Moosetracker, you've posted articles in the past just to whine about atheists who were the "wrong sort" to join the BSA, and you're still whining. Scouter99, you have apparently not noticed that the Girl Guides changed their promise so they wouldn't be excluding atheists, yet this GG unit in the news article has taken it upon themselves to exclude someone contrary to their own rules. Your made-up story would be apt if it was an all-white football team refusing to admit a black football player even though the football league recently voted to integrate.

Look, moosetracker, you wrote "Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?" That's a lie. You attempted to tell ME how I felt, and you got it wrong. If that upsets you, that's your problem. Now you're just whining.

I'm passionate about rights for atheists, not atheism per se.

I would only call you a liar if I thought you had lied. You might not have noticed, but as far as I can recall, every instance that I've called people out-and-out liars in this forum is when they try to tell me what I think or feel, as if they can read my mind, and they also managed to get it wrong in each case.

Here's a hint, JoeBob; I think much the same way (though I wouldn't say that NO religious folks are a threat, as a few want atheists imprisoned or executed for being atheists). That's one reason I called out moosetracker on his lie about how I supposedly "feel". He got it wrong.

Hey, I can always depend on you to insult me, skeptic. Very scoutlike of 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. This anger I interpret as you feeling that the atheist is totally right for not compromising and the Troop as totally wrong for not compromising. WHAT COMPROMISE? The GG unit leader is refusing to allow a new leader to take the official promise. What is the "angry atheist" supposed to do, grovel? Beg? Convert? What kind of "compromise"? The only thing you've offered is for each to take the promise they prefer, BUT SHE ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO DO THAT. So now what? Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God†off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc, Yes, because money, the pledge, and public statues are supposed to be for everyone, not just the majority. How about putting "One White Nation" on our money, "One White Nation Under God" in the pledge, and having public statues dedicated to "white people"? If this was the case now, and a large percentage of non-whites wanted to change this, would they be the sort of people who should be kept out of the BSA for being too "uppity"? You kind of "compromise" indicates that atheists should be satisfied with second-class status and only those who know their place should be allowed into the BSA.

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?