Merlyn_LeRoy

Why is it that atheists are so hated? I have never been able to understand that. I'd say it's because if we atheists are right, that (probably) means that death is the end of each person's existence, and people don't like thinking that death will mean they stop existing.

So just what exactly is "duty to God" supposed to mean. In the prescribed "absolutely nonsectarian" manner? It's nonsense, of course. "duty to God" is incompatible with "absolutely nonsectarian". Yes, the bald wording devoid of meaning from officially published BSA religious policy may appear daunting, but once you realize what it is really supposed to mean there should be no problem. You seem to think wordplay can get around a basic constitutional problem; it can't. As long as the BSA has any requirements for members to make a promise or oath to a god or agree to something like the DRP, the rest doesn't matter. It's already outside the limits of what a public school can do, so it still precludes public school BSA charters.

Merlyn_LeRoy, I am not saying nor would I ever say that anything would "magically turn discrimination into not-discrimination." Nor does any BSA religious requirement actually require "members to make a promise to a god". Of course, by "god" I am referring to a literal suprenatural being, which officially published BSA policy does in fact not require. But any requirement to make a religious promise, as the BSA currently does (e.g. scout oath, must agree to the DRP for membership) constitutes religious discrimination. In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. That doesn't remove the religious discrimination in the above situation; even if the BSA decided that atheists could join, the requirement to recite the scout oath and to agree to the DRP is religious discrimination on its face. It doesn't matter if the BSA decides to allow atheists to join, that's still religious discrimination. The context of my original quote was about public schools as chartering partners; even if the BSA decided to admit atheists, it would still be a constitutional violation if all members were required to agree to the DRP or recite/live by a scout oath that includes "duty to god". It isn't sufficient for the BSA to merely admit atheists to clear all the legal hurdles.

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. That doesn't magically turn discrimination into not-discrimination. In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Requiring members to make a promise to a god, and rejecting those who refuse, is religious discrimination. It doesn't matter how the BSA interprets it. I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. But I can easily find a number of people who have either had their existing membership revoked, or have been refused membership, based solely on their religious views and/or refusal to make a promise that includes a god, including court records where BSA officials have testified that a person's atheism is the basis of their lack of membership. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership? The BSA doesn't need a reason.

Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life. Not until atheists can join.

While the sun has always been a star, it wasn't considered a star until fairly recently. Pluto was a planet until a few years ago. But marriage from the beginning of time, or at least since recorded histroy has been the relationship between a nman and a woman and is the foundational unit of a family. Not at all; polygamy has been about as common as monogamy throughout history. It was legal in Hong Kong until 1971. If you want to give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples, fine, no problem. Create the legal means for them to be bound legally. But don't redefine the meaning of the word marriage to fit it. Why not? That's the easiest way to insure the same legal rights. You don't have to use the word unless you're speaking in some legal context. Call it whatever you want in the vernacular.

"I Love Lucy" was a bit controversial when it started, as it was the first major TV show with a mixed marriage.

"Why should an employer be forced to accept an employee's political/religious views?" They aren't. They're providing insurance coverage. " If an employer doesn't offer the benefits you are looking for, work elsewhere." You can advocate for that scheme; that isn't what we currently have in the US.

Rick_in_CA is right -- those Catholic agencies could have continued to offer adoption services too, just not using public funding, but they decided to close down completely instead. And the insurance issue is bogus; otherwise, working for a Jehovah's Witness could mean you aren't covered for blood transfusions. A Christian Science employer could give you no medical coverage at all. Why should employees have to follow their employers' religious views on medical treatment?

As a youth, I was part of that early 1980's increase. What do the numbers look like since 1986? I posted this in comment above, but I'm afraid that comments way up in the thread get lost in the chaff. Sorry for the duplicity, but I'm really curious if anyone know the current trend of the numbers...... There's a table from 1986 to 2012 here, just on youth membership (the 1972-1986 figures above differ for 1986 (5,170,979 vs 4,036,818), I think the larger number includes adult leaders): http://bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html You can also get 1997-now here: http://www.scouting.org/About/AnnualReports/PreviousYears.aspx

What persecution of certain religions?

The letter doesn't make that distinction; either action would be a first amendment violation.

That's not sponsorship, that's an equal access issue. Every similar group that wants to meet in a public school gets the same access; that has nothing to do with the BSA (and if a school refuses, they can and will get sued). Plus, there was no actual lawsuit that ended all public school charters, the BSA stopped issuing charters to public schools because of the threat of lawsuits. The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed, because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.

In either case, loss of schools is nuanced, largely dependent upon local sentiment, and was not an on/off switch set to 2005. 2005 is when Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU sent a letter to the BSA telling them to stop chartering discriminatory BSA units to public schools, and that is when the BSA started to tell councils to stop issuing charters to government entities. This was separate from Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees and Winkler v. Rumsfeld. The first case was settled almost immediately in the late 1990s when the city of Chicago stopped chartering about 35 BSA units, but it wasn't a general lawsuit over public school charters, and the Rumsfeld one was about the military support of the jamboree. Loss of public school charters wasn't nuanced, they got dropped whether schools wanted them or not. The Illinois ACLU no longer has the press release about it, but archive.org has a copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20050404190145/http://aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml

Depends who you ask... see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

AZMike writes: "Nope, you're the one who mis-described what I had said, even though I clearly stated "I'd agree that these are not ethical actions" ...and then you described the examples I gave as ethical actions. Freudian slip?" No, like I said, I don't consider them ethical actions. ""So, only killing SOME children is moral?" Has your government done the same? " What's with the red herring? Is only killing SOME children moral in your view? The ethical or unethical actions of my government is irrelevant. "Are you sure that no innocent children were ever killed in the war against Nazism?" What's that got to do with anything? "If a people, such as the Canaanites, are in the wrong but still keep their children with them in a battlezone, who would be responsible for keeping them in a battle zone?" How about my Jericho example? That was a city. And killing inhabitants in a city 2000 years ago meant killing people up close and personal with swords and spears, so you don't get some kind of "collateral damage" excuse. Killing children in that kind of situation means that soldiers directly killed children by stabbing them to death. "The Israelites gave them a chance to surrender. Why did they not take it and save their own children's lives?" Why not stick to my question of Jericho instead of using your own cherry-picked example? ""Hey, that excuses ALL murders that happened 150 years ago or earlier! Wow, great morals you got there." Nope, addressed above. " Not at all. Your "excuse" was appalling. It brushes off any murder if the victim would have been dead X years later, and since that's true of every murder after 150 years or more, it excuses every murder ever committed, eventually. ""Uh, where did I say that? Now you seem to just be making up things I've said." Read the sentence before that. The reference was clearly to "you atheists" as a group." Then you should have said "you atheists" or "atheists", not "you" when you are typing a direct reply to me. I'll just put that down to your poor writing skills. "You do realize that atheists are very fond of asking why God does not stop evil, right?" So what? That isn't an argument I had raised. ""Nope, like I said, arguing about morals falls under "reason" in my book. Supposedly "god"-given morals are arbitrary." No, Merlyn. If there are no objective morals, then one's choice of a moral stance has no moral warrant, and thus, one moral system would be just as meaningless as another, however you may choose to waste time arguing about it. " Well, I disagree, and since you've been busy trying to justify killing children, I'd say my moral system is better than yours. "That's arbitrary. And, as I said, from a materialist perspective, there can be no such thing as objective morality." And that's not a bad thing. Even if objective morals did exist, there's no certain way to derive these supposed morals, so it still comes down to the same thing -- humans arguing about what is and isn't moral. "You're arguing about something that cannot even exist from your basic premises." What are you babbling about now? I've never said that objective morals exist. I've been arguing about morals, not objective morals.

AZMike writes: "Ah, Merlyn is backtracking from what he said earlier. " Nope, you're the one who mis-described what I had said, even though I clearly stated "I'd agree that these are not ethical actions". "So, from this entirely reasonable view of history and textual research, it appears that a hard-fought battle occurred, the Israelites were victorious (for a time), and not all the enemy’s women and children and donkeys were actually killed." So, only killing SOME children is moral? "People may have died under the sword, but every one of them would have been dead by now, anyway." Hey, that excuses ALL murders that happened 150 years ago or earlier! Wow, great morals you got there. "You complain why didn’t God stop the Nazis" Uh, where did I say that? Now you seem to just be making up things I've said. "Oh yeah - a subjective code of morality fits the definition of "arbitrary" as you cited it, Merlyn. It is arbitrary." Nope, like I said, arguing about morals falls under "reason" in my book. Supposedly "god"-given morals are arbitrary.

"So you agree that the actions I described were, in fact, ethical actions" No, I already said "I'd agree that these are not ethical actions". "And why do you think the fact that people will argue over an issue that is not based in any objective moral code somehow makes it anything other than arbitrary?" Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Arguing about ethics and morals falls under reason in my book, while supposed "objective" morals that differ purely on what god people believe doles out these morals is what I call arbitrary because changing what god is used changes the morals, and I consider god-belief to fall under "random choice or personal whim". By the way, was Joshua acting morally and ethically, or not?

UK Girl Guides revise promise to allow atheists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ountry-promise ... About 44,000 people responded to a consultation on changing the oath's wording, according to Girlguiding UK. The group still believes girls need space to explore their beliefs and "moral framework", said Chief Guide Gill Slocombe. "We knew that some people found our Promise confusing on this point and that it discouraged some girls and volunteers from joining us. "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 oath now reads: "I promise that I will do my best: to be true to myself and develop my beliefs, to serve the Queen and my community, to help other people and to keep the (Brownie) Guide law." ...

AZMike writes: Merlyn, you wrote, "Once you start bringing in arbitrary actions that gods want, even killing other people (that god wants you to kill) magically becomes an ethical act. This doesn't mean I'm going to consider it ethical." As best I can recall, none of the ethical actions that believers can do that unbelievers can't (which I describe) included killing those whom God has commanded us to kill, nor are they arbitrary. None of the ethical actions you cherry-picked, no, but, for example, Joshua and his troops: The city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. ... They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. … And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had. So there's Joshua and his troops killing children under orders from your god. By the same token, however, an atheist can argue for the murder of the unborn, the murder of the aged, or the murder of the deformed using the cloak of, say, Utilitarianism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariate or Improving the Human Breeding Stock or what have you, if there is no objective system of value that isn't, at base level, simply a cultural or personal aesthetic choice. Now THAT'S arbitrary. No, it's not "arbitrary", you even stated that they'd have to argue for it. That's one of the big problems with atheist-based "morality" and "ethics," Merlyn. What, that people would actually have to argue for their positions, instead of mindlessly obeying what someone claims god wants? Let me ask you, was Joshua acting morally and ethically, or not? I would say he wasn't. What's your take?

When confronted with these common-sense responses, Hitch would usually respond angrily that they were not ethical actions, as prayer didn't work. So, he would move the goal posts to avoid the answer. I'd agree that these are not ethical actions. Once you start bringing in arbitrary actions that gods want, even killing other people (that god wants you to kill) magically becomes an ethical act. This doesn't mean I'm going to consider it ethical. That's one of the big problems with god-based morality and ethics.

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trouble Trevorum is a Unitarian on the national religious committee, so clearly that's not the issue. Wise's situation was unique to Wise as outlined in my reply to Rick at the top of this post. And take his wise lead on excusing myself from this flagellation party. All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. Uh, so what? Where does the BSA state that you can be an atheist as long as you belong to a religion? Or where does the BSA state that all members have to belong to a religion? Sounds to me like you're just making up rules that don't exist. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. To unroll your metaphor, "kicking the beehive" = being honest about ones own religious views. Yeah, we can't have that...

Jews have a God; Wiccans have both a God and Goddess. Jews are theist not atheist; Wiccans are polytheist not atheist. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. I get my information from actual Jews like e.g. http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com Atheist Wiccans are a bit more controversial with some people saying yes, there can be, and others saying no: http://www.witchschool.com/forum/topics/can-you-be-an-atheist-wiccan

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them. Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

You need to get over it, or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program. If swearing as an atheist to do your duty to God didn't tip you off that you were going to intrinsically be in conflict with BSA, you either weren't paying attention, or you wanted that conflict. BSA didn't cause your suffering, you caused your suffering when you knowingly and willfully joined an organization which you knew was incompatible with your beliefs. You can camp without god in Campfire USA. We've answered your question: Refer to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle. There are already plenty of websites dedicated to tearing BSA down, I'm sure they can give you the ammo you're looking for. Well Scouter99, some other people might want to help him. You don't have to involve yourself in this thread if you don't want to.