Weekender 10 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 It's seems quite obvious to me that Merlin_leroy is only posting in this forum to stir up anger and disrupt our "normally" civil exchange of ideas. He has stated he does not believe in God and he obviously has a pro-homosexual, pro-atheist, pro-imoralality agenda. Therefore, by MY definition of BSA ideals, he does not qualify to be a scouter. Since this forum was set up for scouts and scouters to exchange ideas I personally feel that we should all ignore leroy's posts from this point forward. IF we are lucky maybe he will go away. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to post here but he has no right to response. We are we giving him a reason to stay? Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 While it is apparent that Merlyn is fully capable of a good debate (intellectually), I must agree with Weekender. He obviously does not believe in our organization (at least not as it exists today). We should not give me reason to further disrupt discourse on this site. Debating BSA's religious requirement with Merlyn is like debating the flavor of poultry with a vegetarian. It just doesn't make sense any more. He's not going to get it...And if he does, he will probably use it as a basis for some sort of insult. Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated Dad 10 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 These are quotes from Rooster on another thread and I thought they were very appropriate for this discussion. RE - BSA policies on atheism and homosexuals. Many, hopefully most Scouts, Scouters, and their families joined Scouting because of these polices, not despite of them. I know that my son and I are here partly because the BSA does have these policies and if they were changed or omitted we would have to leave. I'd rather have these discussions on an open forum such as this so everyone is fully aware of the issues and the people seeking to change them. As opposed to ignoring them, or down playing them, while someone like Merlyn works in the background to change the program. One of the reasons many churches no longer believe in the things they use to is NOT because their spiritual leaders examined God's Word and prayed about the issues. It's largely because thousands of folks sat silently in the pews while dozens of noisy members (or even non-members) got their way. This is the problem, and I couldnt have said any better, if we ignore the Merlyns of the world they will subvert and change policy while we sit on our hands. We can either have a forum for Scouters who choose to accept the BSA for its policy that has stood the test of time for its 80+ years or we can let political correctness change it for us. Now here this: If the moderators of this forum are open to outside influence, and Merlyn has cleverly pointed out that there are no written restrictions on who posts in this forum, I have a couple non-Scouter attorney friends who sport argue this subject on freerepublic.com everyday. Not because Bob Russell doesnt do a good job defending the faith, but since the deafening silence of everyone else on this forum has expressed no objection to Merlyns presence, Im going to invite some real constitutionalists who would be more than willing to debate the BSAs right to free association and membership requirements. Im not willing to sit idly by and let the anti-religion/pro-homosexual crowd stand unchallenged here on Scouter.com while the rest of the Lemmings go along to get along. I encourage everyone to write the moderator Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated Dad 10 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 My edit function never works!This should read, now hear this. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 ... "if we ignore the Merlyns of the world they will subvert and change policy while we sit on our hands." I'm not interested in changing your policy; I'm interested in removing government support from the BSA's practice of religious discrimination. ... "I'm going to invite some real constitutionalists who would be more than willing to debate the BSA's right to free association and membership requirements." That isn't what I've been talking about; I've been talking about government support of the BSA's religious discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites
jmcquillan 10 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 In lieu of some magic that bans those posting things we might not want to read, it's better to simply ignore the offensive posts, pretend they and their creator don't exist, and go on. Eventually, and hopefully, the offender might go elsewhere as no one will talk with him/her. I know many will say "Easier said than done"...but it's also an easier route to take than trying to incite a moderator, webmaster, or other authority. At least it is for me. Troll???........what troll? Link to post Share on other sites
FScouter 24 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 It is amazing how much energy has been expended in defending BSA ideals. Ideals that are far stronger than are the Merlyns of the world that would seek to destroy them. Continue our mission to "deliver the promise". Our success in doing so strengthens our institution far greater than attacks on our detractors. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 Amen. OOOPs...Sorry, I couldn't resist. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 Merlin, You ignored my one post requesting you to explain your position, so I will try another one. You stated "That isn't what I've been talking about; I've been talking about government support of the BSA's religious discrimination." What religion does the BSA discriminate against? Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Weekender 10 Posted February 6, 2002 Author Share Posted February 6, 2002 Rooster7, I'll second that amen!! GOD Bless America and the Boy Scouts of America. Some will say that the founders of our country established a seperation of church and state. I posit that their intent was to keep government out of religion not religion out of the government. Read on. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. George Washington 3 Oct 1789 Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 Great post Weekender. You get another - Amen! Funny how the people who argue "separation of church and state" ignore the writings of our founding fathers as if they had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. It's ridiculous. They take one sentence and twist into a tenant that no one ever thought imaginable (with exception to some of our "deep thinking" justices from the 60's and 70's). How can anyone read this declaration from George Washington and honestly believe our founding fathers wanted all of government to wash it hands of God? It's truly amazing. These are probably the same people that take one verse of scripture by itself and twist it to their advantage. It appears as if every generation has it Pharisees. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 ... "What religion does the BSA discriminate against?" I didn't say the BSA discriminates against a religion, I said the BSA practices religious discrimination. "Religious discrimination" means more than you think; excluding atheists is "religious discrimination", requiring a belief in a god is "religious discrimination" (and yes, requiring atheism is also "religious discrimination") Link to post Share on other sites
eisely 13 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 I have been ignoring the troll for a long time now. I won't even repeat his name. Link to post Share on other sites
FScouter 24 Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 The lack of comment from the wise sages of this forum, such as Eisely, speaks volumes. Link to post Share on other sites
Glenn 10 Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 My major problem with not responding to trolls, is that future visitors to the site may get the impression that the troll must be correct because no one disputed him/her. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts