Happy Blasphemy Day

[skeptic 992]

"That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs."

 

Maybe you should get the facts straight. The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them. Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization". But, since apparently atheism is also, according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base their argument, even if you discount the fact they never even attempted to book it, nor were actually turned down.

 

Your court.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them.

 

Here's what the courts say:

The plaintiffs Barnes-Wallaces are a lesbian couple and the plaintiffs Breens are agnostics. Because of their sexual and religious orientations, they cannot be Boy Scout volunteers. Both couples have sons old enough to join the Boy Scouts, and they would like their sons to use the leased facilities, but the parents refuse to give the approval required for membership. As part of the membership application, a parent must promise to assist his or her son in observing the policies of the Boy Scouts of America . . . [to] serve as his adult partner and participate in all meetings and approve his advancement. [id. 1533.] The application also includes the Scout Law and the Declaration of Religious Principle. The Barnes-Wallaces and the Breens believe that the Boy Scouts policies are discriminatory, and they refuse to condone such practices by allowing their children to join the Boy Scouts.

 

That hardly matches your description; to join, the lesbian couple would have to agree that gays are 'unclean' like the BSA says, and the agnostics would have to agree that only believers can be the best kinds of citizens. Plus, of course, they would be paying membership fees to a group that continues to denigrate them.

 

Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization".

 

That wasn't the basis of the lawsuit.

 

But, since apparently atheism is also,

 

Atheism isn't a "religious organization." There can be religious organizations that espouse atheism (there are a few, like the Raelians), but atheism isn't a religious organization any more than theism is a religious organization.

 

according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base their argument,

 

You don't HAVE their argument. They didn't object per se in dealing with a religious organization, they objected to having to join an organization like the BSA (which denigrates both families) to use public property.

 

even if you discount the fact they never even attempted to book it, nor were actually turned down.

 

Well, the courts disagree with you.

[Peregrinator 85]

 

Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined.

 

So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium.

 

So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread?

 

I think the problem is not atheist individuals, or even atheist individuals in power, but rather when a State tries to make atheist materialism a basis for civilization. Atheism is a negation of religion; similarly, atheist civilization is a negation of civilization.