Deloe

"A person's beliefs are not a choice? Are we pre-programmed? Don't people change their views?" No, beliefs are not a choice. A person's height changes, too, but that's not a choice. I wouldn't say that we are "pre-programmed", but our beliefs are part of who we are, and we can't choose who we are (because what we choose is part of who we are, and if we could choose that, that would be circular). "I'm sorry, but if I feel I'm right about something, I'm going to fight back." You seem to be missing the most important word. I even put in in all caps: "automatically". I asked "[W]hy a

Eamonn: Your first post was worded impolitely, and it was followed even ruder posts by other posters. It is no surprise that Merlyn would take offense at these posts. And you conclude that Merlyn is a troll? And I wouldn't characterize my position on faith-based programs as "unsure". I am quite sure these are questionable at best. I did qualify the claim that no non-Christian groups have received any money, because I have not personally verified this, and I am open to the possibility that I have received incorrect information (a quality that I apparently share with very few members of

Bob White: Perhaps you should check out what this site has to say about "celibate": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=celibate "The existence or absence of sexual activity is irrelevant for membership in the BSA." Huh? Surely if someone engages in homosexual activity, that would result in expulsion. And if this is really about "morality", not about bigotry, surely they would kick out fornicators as well. I mean, on what basis would they not allow an avowed homosexual, but allow an avowed fornicator? "The condition is that if you are an avowed atheist or homosexual you cannot

Herms, I can't understand how anyone can say either is a choice. We can only choose our actions. We cannot choose our beliefs, or our desires. You might as well claim that being short is a choice. Eamonn: I'm not sure what you mean by "born homosexual". Do you mean "come out the womb sexually atracted to the same sex"? Then no. Do you mean "inherently different from heterosexuals"? I think that is self-evident. Have you ever been tempted to be homosexual? Homosexuals have. So unless you have, that's a difference between you and them. I don't understand how anyone can think ho

I'd ask FOG whether he considers calling atheists liars to be an insult, but he'd probably just duck the question like usual. Laurie: The fact is, the BSA is dominated by Christians. While there are non-Christians, there a quite small percentage.

Trail Pounder, I've got some news for you: EVERYONE is born an atheist! It's the natural state of humanity. There are also 11 year old homosexuals, and neither is a choice.

whitewater: I haven't seen Merlyn say the sort of things you claim. But I haven't read every thread. So let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Merlyn hates the BSA and wants it to be destroyed. So what? FOG did not direct his attacks to Merlyn specifically, he directed them to atheists in general. If FOG is justified in judging all atheists based on Merlyn, then Merlyn is justified in judging all Scouts based on FOG. Big_Dog: I think that what you missed is that Eamonn started a thread ASKING atheists for their views. If someone on a planned parenthood forum asked what P

FOG: Again Dee-low shows how little he know of the real world. Quite often the women's rest room has sofas and comfy chairs and carpeting. Men's room's have ceramic fixtures. Hmm, I wonder where your knowledge of womens bathrooms come from. I rather doubt that is the norm, but I dont need to know enough to investigate myself. However, a more important measure would be time spent waiting in line for use of the bathroom, and here women are the clear losers. Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being? No. Whitewater Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight

While I dont endorse everything that Merlyn has said, and certainly not how he said it, his basic point is sound. Bob White, you made a claim which Merlyn disputed. Instead of attempting a substantial rebuttal, you defended your claim on the basis that you dont know for certain that it is false. I mean, come on. THATS your defense? Your claim MIGHT be true? On that basis, I would be completely justified in calling you a murderer. I mean, I dont know for sure that you arent. When you say that the BSA does not take public money, the natural interpretation is I know that the BSA does not

Perhaps you could explain how not wanting to have one's tax money support an organization constitutes "having it in" for that organization. And from what I've heard, in these "faith-based initiatives", "faith" exclusively refers to "Christian". And Bush has said that he will look FIRST to faith-based initiatives. So, yes, I do oppose this as well.

And once again FOG shows that he's not interested in having a mature discussion. Making lame puns out of other people's names, blaming the victim (apparently if someone is offended, it's because they are "looking" for offense), acttacking me for imaginary offenses (making up hypothetical food procurement situations, and telling me what I would do), and making fun of other people's misery. That's what passes for argument in FOG-land.

FOG: Separate but equal? Didn't work for education or bathrooms, did it? Oh, I guess that's okay because it discriminates against men. Men are not being discriminated against; if anything, its the women that are. But I dont think theres much chance of discussing this rationally with you. You still refuse to tell me whats wrong with my explanation. Why couldn't I join the French club? I don't speak French. Duh! And didnt you CHOOSE not to learn French? Whitewater: The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention

Seems to me that an incredibly important point is being completely ignored here. Read the first paragraph again: "After his 6-year-old son started attending school in Portland this fall, David Hilton discovered that being a parent these days means sorting through all the papers that get stuffed into children's backpacks at school." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the school probably does not supply its students with backpacks. No, I'm pretty sure that backpack was bought by David Hilton. Which means that he owns it. It's his. He can make whatever rules regarding its us

I don't understand your title; I don't see that the ACLU has done anything other than offer their opinion of the case to a reporter. I also don't understand the tone of the title; do you approve of courts ignoring the Supreme Court? Seems to me "Enemies of the Constitution strike again" would be a more proper title.

FOG: "Interesting concept, a troll calling me a troll. I've made over 2,000 postings over the past year and you show up to start a rhubarb and call me a troll. If you were a man I'd be offended." I don't see any basis for you to call me a troll, now do I see how 2,000 posts gives you license to engage in the sort of dishonesty you have exhibited in this thread. You claimed that only outsiders were complaining, and you continued to do so even after I had explained that you were in error. You now say that there is something wrong with my explanation, but refuse to say what. Now if I in er

" "You claimed that no local people were complaining" Try this, go get a dictionary and then go back and re-read the entire thread, looking up each word as you go along. " Are you now claiming that you didn't say that? You said: "The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." You clearly stated that no one except outsiders were complaining. Were you using "outsider" in sonething other than a geographical sense? Perhaps people who disagree with you are outsiders, regardless of where the

FOG "It has nothing to do with anything that I said." You claimed that no local people were complaining. How does the fact that local people were complaining have nothing to do with the claim that no local people were complaining? This is just bizarre. " 'Rules' for debating are for weenies who can't get dates. " Hmm, that sounds like a rule to me. Here's another rule: people who post personal insults in lieu of actual arguments generally do so because they dont have any valid point to make. whitewater: The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to val

FOG: And your explanation for how my explanation is in error is absent completely. You claimed "no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." But the ACLU are not outsiders (they have a SD branch), and there people who filed this suit are San Diegans. You are in error. What is wrong with my explanation? And I see you are now employing the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. evmori: The ACLU's version of the Constitution is based on their interpretation of what was actually written. Chanting over and over again "Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" is

I have another question: those that think that this will be reversed on appeal: what reversible errors do you see?

Something I was wondering about: some articles have said that the boys in question were not allowed into the BSA, one because his parents were atheists, and the other because they were of the same sex. Does the BSA really restrict membership on the basis of the boys' parents? NJCubScouter: but the fact that supporters of the BSA are acting dishonestly IS one of my main points. If someone were writing articles libeling the Scouts, theyd be up in arms about it. But as far as I know, the Scouts have not complained about this article, and have in fact promoted it. So apparently, the Scout

Thanks, Merlyn. It's good to see that I am not alone in this. There's also the question of how the phrase "at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm" is a gratuitious insult. It seems to me that it is both factual and relevant. Surely the BSA would agree that values which conflict with their views are widely held by the public? I've sent an email to the California Bar Association expressing my concern regarding one of its members deliberately fostering public misunderstanding of the case. I don't know if this is considered an ethics violation, but it shoul

"I get the idea that if the Demon Dogs M.C. broke into his house, Deloe would welcome them, offer them coffe and change the sheets before they raped his wife and daughters." Well, I think that pretty much tells me how concern you have for such values as respect and courtesy. I take it you don't feel bound by the rules of decorum? "I suppose that describing Hitler as evil might be discourteous as well but that's what he was." I take it you've never heard of Godwin's Law? "The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining exc

To go through each of the 13 sentence would take quite a while, so let's start with the quote acco40 posted. "Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a 'religious organization,' " Lie. Jones never said that. The BSA does not merely believe in God; one of its major objectives is the promotion of religion and religious values. And on top of that, during the Dale case, the BSA argued that they were exempt from anti-discrimation laws under a religious exemption. So apparently the BSA is a religious organization when it's c

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that bsalegal.org is run by the Boy Scouts. I therefore find it difficult to understand the hosting of the this article: http://www.bsalegal.org/dailytra-165.htm . For one thing, the article virtually drips of vitriol and contempt for the ACLU. Is calling someone a "Grinch" respectful? Dismissing someone's concerns as "mean-spirited" courteous? Referring to a statement as "Orwellian" friendly? But the greatest violation of all is in the "trustworthy" category. I'd list every single sentence that includes a lie, but that would constitute