Sentinel947 1205 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Not posting as a moderator, Merlyn, what is your purpose here? There are plenty of members who don't support the membership policy. You don't need to convince us. Then there are those who will always support the policy. You are never going to change their minds. So why do you continue to make posts about this issue and stir the pot? Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hmmm, let me get this straight. Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists and homosexuals. The State of California discriminates against Boy Scouts of America. Is this a chicken and egg thing or is it the pot calling the kettle black thing? Stosh 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Stosh, BSA changed direction because they decide Scouting needed to become more urban and less outdoor in order to attract the increasingly urban population of youth. Ignorant of the past, they failed to note that Scouting had always been most successful in urban areas and less successful in highly rural areas. Apparently novelty is a draw. The anti-military period was just before WW I. Shooting MB's were eliminated. Scouts were "for peace." General Leonard Wood quit the national board in protest. TR complained openly and bitterly. Then we got in the war and "patriotism" swept all before it. Nothing like that since. qwarze, got it. Thank you. Nothing in your quotes specifies "illegal discrimination", just "discrimination". You believe "invidious discrimination" as used by courts includes lawful discrimination? We have court cases ordering the end of legal discrimination? Why do you suppose that every example given in the quotes is a "protected class" as to whom discrimination is presently unlawful? Not a mention of "invidious discrimination" against Browns fans in Pittsburgh or discrimination on the basis of objectively-determined ability or "invidious discrimination" by the Masons who require professed belief in a Supreme Being for membership. Those who use "invidious" as a synonym for "I don't like it" are certainly free to express their dislikes, but they do not advance legal analysis. Judges often don't address further issues if earlier issues decide the issue' date=' so the BSA's religious discrimination wasn't even considered once their anti-gay discrimination settled the issue. I and other atheists would be certain to bring it up if the BSA admits adult gays but still excludes atheists.[/quote'] But, as you yourself pointed out, BSA allows atheists as youth and adult members and approves religious awards for atheistic religions. A rose by any other name. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hmmm, let me get this straight. Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists and homosexuals. The State of California discriminates against Boy Scouts of America. Is this a chicken and egg thing or is it the pot calling the kettle black thing? Stosh It's an equivocation thing, on your end. The state of California also discriminates against the KKK because of the KKK's discrimination. ​You know, membership standards and all that. Their's includes not belonging to organizations that could bring the impartiality of the courts into question, like organizations that say gays are "unclean". Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 You believe "invidious discrimination" as used by courts includes lawful discrimination? We have court cases ordering the end of legal discrimination? Are you incapable of any logic at all? Not all discrimination is illegal discrimination. Not all discrimination is invidious discrimination. Why do you suppose that every example given in the quotes is a "protected class" as to whom discrimination is presently unlawful? Like religion? Does that mean you agree that the BSA practices "invidious discrimination", because religious discrimination is illegal in some cases? Not a mention of "invidious discrimination" against Browns fans in Pittsburgh or discrimination on the basis of objectively-determined ability or "invidious discrimination" by the Masons who require professed belief in a Supreme Being for membership. Wait, are you saying a Restricted club that excludes Jews isn't "invidious discrimination"? Those who use "invidious" as a synonym for "I don't like it" are certainly free to express their dislikes' date=' but they do not advance legal analysis.[/quote'] Neither does your amateur equivocation that the only illegal discrimination is "invidious discrimination". Would you say the KKK's discrimination is "invidious discrimination"? Would you say the KKK's discrimination is illegal? But' date=' as you yourself pointed out, BSA allows atheists as youth and adult members[/quote'] Not really, no. They go to court to throw out atheists, remember? By the way, you'll notice that the people actually involved in this (California judges) seem pretty clear that BSA membership is now off-limits for California judges. I'll believe they know the law and their own judicial ethics code better than either of us. The BSA is out for their invidious (albeit legal) discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites
skeptic 993 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 If our "purpose" in life is to do everything in our power to denigrate those with whom we disagree, and feel that ONLY our beliefs and thoughts have validity, then in reality, "we have no purpose, only an existance". Link to post Share on other sites
Rick_in_CA 401 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 No' date=' I'm using it 100% right. "... person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people ... ". You show up only to sow discord and start the same old arguments over and over again. You don't participate or add value on any other topic. Your value is sowing discord on the topic to achieve your objective. That is trolling.[/quote'] I have to disagree strongly here Fred. Merlyn contributes plenty to the discussions on this board. You don't have to agree with what he says, but to basically say "your comments are worthless so go away" is un-scoutlike. Merlyn is not a troll. He is merely passionate about his chosen subject. And yes, most of his posts tend to focus on that subject, but so what? It's an important subject for the BSA and our society, and wishing is not going to make the question of membership standards go away. This is I&P, discussions like this is what this forum is for. The vast majority of Merlyn's posts have been civil and to the point. Yes, when called names or attacked he sometimes responds strongly, but we all have a tendency to do that. That is sad and to brag of it is sick. Many people spend lives building up something good. You are spending a life knocking down a very very good organization to achieve an objective. It's the choice between constructive working for change or destroying to achieve an objective. So standing up for religious freedom, the rights of citizens and the US Constitution is sad and sick? Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Are you incapable of any logic at all? Not all discrimination is illegal discrimination. Not all discrimination is invidious discrimination. Well, I hope I am capable of logic. Logic tells me that since BSA's discrimination has been found lawful, it is not, as you repeatedly claim, "invidious." It's just discrimination, which is generally lawful. Like religion? Does that mean you agree that the BSA practices "invidious discrimination", because religious discrimination is illegal in some cases? I fail to see the logic of your question. The courts have not found BSA's discrimination to be unlawful, hence it is not "invidious." At least that is so for now. Wait, are you saying a Restricted club that excludes Jews isn't "invidious discrimination"? Tell me more about this club. Is it restricted to Catholics, such as Knights of Columbus? Neither does your amateur equivocation that the only illegal discrimination is "invidious discrimination". If I am equivocating, it's as a professional, but I do not believe that I am. I am merely attempting, as best I can, to follow points of law that you ignore.seem to discomfort you. What I thought I clearly said is that only unlawful discrimination is "invidious." If I was not clear enough, I am now. Would you say the KKK's discrimination is "invidious discrimination"? Would you say the KKK's discrimination is illegal? That would, of course, depend on whether it was invidious - that is, unlawful. What the KKK is most infamous for is attempted and actual intimidation and murderous violence in violation of federal civil rights statutes passed over a long period of time.. Their targets were persons of color, Catholics, and Jews. They influenced government to pass laws found to be invidiously discriminatory. The, shall we say, traditional KKK has been sued to admit a person who had African-American blood, but I don't know how it came out. He was a happy Klan member, but they threw him out when they found he was not "pure" (as if there was such a thing.). I suppose they could argue Freedom of Association, like all the other groups who lawfully discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Or to quote you in this thread, "The KKK excludes non-whites legally." (We live in an age of miracles. One Klan, the Rocky Mountain Knights, is welcoming persons of color and gays. [not sure about atheists.] Brian obviously does not refer to that group. Perhaps this development is not so strange since George Wallace laterly solicited the support of Alabama's African American political establishment and of the voters they organized.) Originally posted by TAHAWK "But, as you yourself pointed out, BSA allows atheists as youth and adult members." Not really, no. They go to court to throw out atheists, remember? You have noted that BSA admits atheists, remember? On this forum. Buddhists. And they admit Jains as well and recognize their religious awards. So, its policy and practice is to exclude some atheists, but not all. . By the way, you'll notice that the people actually involved in this (California judges) seem pretty clear that BSA membership is now off-limits for California judges. I'll believe they know the law and their own judicial ethics code better than either of us. The BSA is out for their invidious (albeit legal) discrimination. The ruling could not be clearer. The California Supreme Court, as a matter of state law, found conduct which the federal courts found lawful, to be "invidious." Whether that ruling will withstand federal judicial scrutiny is another question. The context, state administration of its own judiciary, complicates the case. Being convinced, even passionately convinced, of the rectitude and legality of a position, does not preclude being mistaken. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is very clear that, notwithstanding federal court decisions, gay marriage is unlawful in Alabama. The University of Michigan was quite sure its "affirmative action" plan was lawful. ​ Now tell us, if you will, what are the most important aspects of the Patrol Method in your opinion? Like the new uniform? Favorite places to camp in Minnesota? Link to post Share on other sites
DuctTape 1230 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Invidious does not equate to unlawful. Invidious discrimination may be either lawful or unlawful. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Lawful and unlawful is only an arbitrary designation set up to justify some bigotry and not others. People discriminate all the time [h=1]discriminate[/h] dis·crim·i·nate (dÄÂ-skrÄÂm′ə-nÄÂt′) v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates v.intr. 1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. 2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, especially to show prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or a similar social factor: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies. v.tr. 1. To perceive or notice the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: unable to discriminate colors. 2. To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience; characteristics that discriminate early stone artifacts from pieces of natural stone. People who don't discriminate generally are those that don't notice differences until some bigoted person brings it up. Even if they do, they don't feel it important enough to bring it into the situation. Only those who insist on acting on their discriminations are considered the true bigots. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
fred johnson 936 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Civility is a skill and a grace under fire when dealing with the low behavior others. I am not perfect, but I hope that the contributing members of this board try to avoid insults and inferences targeting the character of others. Leave low behavior to shame itself. These are important, timely and evolving topics. Treat such discussions with respect and those discussing with courtesy. For myself, I will try to do better also. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
fred johnson 936 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Invidious does not equate to unlawful. Invidious discrimination may be either lawful or unlawful. I did find that wording interesting until I read more. The change was based on a set of public hearings on the topic. IMHO, this is the result of ugly activism as we see on this board. Yelling. Insults. Slanderous statements. It's not about a scouter not being able to be impartial as a judge. I think the use of the word "invidious" is tied more to the definition: "(of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others." I'm betting judges heard plenty of angry opinions at those hearings, similar to the ugly words we've heard on this board. IMHO, that's one reason the word "invidious" appears. What's next? You can't be a member of AA? Link to post Share on other sites
DuctTape 1230 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Stosh, hence the adjective invidious to specify a certain specific type of discrimination; which isn't defined as lawful or unlawful. Invidious discrimination is bigotry if it exists in ones heart regardless of actions. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Well' date=' I hope I am capable of logic. Logic tells me that since BSA's discrimination has been found lawful, it is not, as you repeatedly claim, "invidious." It's just discrimination, which is generally lawful.[/quote'] Which means these judges don't know what their own rules mean. But I think they do. I fail to see the logic of your question. The courts have not found BSA's discrimination to be unlawful, hence it is not "invidious." At least that is so for now. No, for now, judges can't be members of the BSA. That's what the judges actually say it means. Tell me more about this club. Is it restricted to Catholics, such as Knights of Columbus? No. A Restricted club excluded Jews, only. If I am equivocating, it's as a professional, but I do not believe that I am. I am merely attempting, as best I can, to follow points of law that you ignore.seem to discomfort you. I'm not the one saying judges got their own rules wrong. You are. What I thought I clearly said is that only unlawful discrimination is "invidious." If I was not clear enough, I am now. You were quite clear. You're wrong. That would, of course, depend on whether it was invidious - that is, unlawful. Ridiculous. The ethics rules would SAY "illegal" if they MEANT "illegal". They don't. You still haven't even produced a definition of "invidious" that requires illegality. You have noted that BSA admits atheists, remember? On this forum. Buddhists. And that they throw out atheists, too. The ruling could not be clearer. The California Supreme Court, as a matter of state law, found conduct which the federal courts found lawful, to be "invidious." Because "invidious" and "illegal" are two different words that mean two different things. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 People discriminate all the time People equivocate all the time, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now