Judge rules US justice dept. can't weigh in on Scout lease case

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

You're the one who slanders an entire group based on their religious views. Apparently, you wouldn't have trusted Thomas Edison because he was an atheist, or Isaac Asimov (even though he wrote articles for Boy's Life).

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Merlyn, I will try once more to explain this, and I do this only to try to defend the honor of all scouters to the myriad of readers who will follow.

 

The reason why I would not jump on FOG, nor do I expect a lot of people to do so is because he has shown himself to be a an inveterate curmudgeon ( I love that word) he is not above yanking anybody's chain on any topic and is as acerbic as they come. Now I can say, FOG, get off it, and I may as well be talking to the wall for all the good it does. He is as he is, and I really dont think the BSA can take any credit/blame for his personality.

 

Saying that FOG is representative of all scouters is like saying Lyndon LaRouche is representative of all politicians (with apologies to Mr LaRouche of course)

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Trail Day,

The BSA has not been designated a religion as you have stated, it is a religious organization. There is a big difference. Judiasm is a religion, Knights of Columbus is a religious organization.

 

Merlyn,

Consider this. Isaac Asimov's employment by the Boys' Life Magazine (along with Bobby Fisher's, who if memory serves was is also an atheist) only proves that the BSA is not intolerant toward athiests. They simply are not accepted for membership since their non-belief is in direct opposition to the tenets of the progam. The fact that Asimov can write and Fisher can play chess, may suit them as guest authors it does not mean they would be suitable leaders.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

And what does it mean when Boy's Life runs a story on Langston Hughes (around Jan 1999)? It presented him as a good role model, while at the same time arguing in the Dale case that gay men couldn't be good role models for the Boy Scouts. I guess they didn't know that Hughes was an out gay man.

 

And yes, the BSA is intolerant towards atheists.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Moi-lin said, "You're the one who slanders an entire group based on their religious views."

 

Tsk, tsk, tsk. For someone who puts himself up as being the be-all and end all of knowledge, you made a simple mistake. I'll leave it to you to figure it out.

 

As for my statement, I have never met an atheist that I could trust. As for your examples, I have never met either one and it is very unlikely that I ever will but what evidence do you have that either was trustworthy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"Libel" and "slander" aren't as simple as written vs. spoken; it's more published vs. unpublished, and a forum like this would probably not be considered publication.

 

In any case, I find the Boy Scouts to be a dishonest organization due to its chartering of discriminatory units to government agencies, as I've said in other threads.

[evmori 11]

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath; this just illustrates how the BSA and many of its members promote intolerance towards atheists, and why the government has no business supporting such an organization.

By having articles written by atheists in their publications this shows the BSA is intolerant of atheists? Again, I must be missing something. Sounds like tolerance to me.

Bob White,

I beg to differ. The BSA is NOT a religious organization. It is an organization that ascribes to certain religious beliefs. Someone please tell Bob I posted this. He has me blocked. Thanks

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[scoutingagain 20]

Not to fully engage in the debate, but I thought I'd share a term I heard recently to describe:

 

Lazy, white, pampered, upper middle class teenagers, particularly those that like to dress down, but always seem to have the best name brand outdoor equipment and toys. ..."Trustafarians".

 

SA

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Moi-lin blathered, "'Libel' and 'slander' aren't as simple as written vs. spoken; it's more published vs. unpublished, and a forum like this would probably not be considered publication."

 

Didn't know that you were a lawyer or did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

 

I discussed this issue with my attorney a couple years ago and according to him, the courts have held that this sort of activity is little different than publishing in a magazine or newspaper.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Did you also discuss with your attorney that neither slander nor libel are torts against a class of people, so my use of "slander against atheists" was obviously metaphorical? I guess not.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Retorical, perhaps, but I don't see a metaphor or a metaphive.

 

In any event, I am simply holding you to your own standard but it is obvious that you fall short.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Using the term "slander" was perfectly correct under its definition of "A false and malicious statement or report".

[evmori 11]

Slander schmander! It's not slander if Merlyn says it but if the BSA does it is! The "double standard" applies. I'd like a "do over" please!

 

Now, what about the tolerance thing? Merlyn, you never answered my question (as usual)!

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Gotta love Moi-lin, he argues but when he's proven to be wrong he whines, "Well, I wuz rite anyways becuz . . . ."

[Hunt 11]

The BSA has religion-based restrictions on membership. In that respect, it clearly "discriminates" against atheists who might want to join. I would argue that it is not "intolerant" as long as it takes no steps to prevent atheists from enjoying their freedoms and doesn't harass them in any way. It also discriminates against gays, and may arguably be "intolerant" toward them since it considers them to be not "morally straight" and not appropriate role models for Scouts.

But those are just labels--really, you either agree with BSA on those issues or you don't. BSA is also "intolerant" of child abusers, but nobody complains about that because we all agree with BSA's position on the morality and danger of such people.

The problem with separation of church and state is that you can't separate the state from only those religious groups you don't like--it's really all or none.