wanderer

It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.

In geology, rapid is still a very long time, even up to a few million years.

The fresh vegetable section is the first aisle in most grocery stores that I can think of. Any fresh fruit or vegetables she got would be at the bottom.

Accepting of homosexuals so long as the never act on their feelings. Catholics accept anyone so long as they follow Catholic rules. That’s always been their position.

The pope never intended to express himself in homophobic terms, it’s just that he is so homophobic that it slips out sometimes.

Onan’s crime was greed not lust. He did not want to provide for Tamar or her potential children.

Yes, from a superficial viewpoint they are similar. And from a superficial viewpoint shooting a practice target is similar to shooting a person dead. It would be rather stupid to refer to target practice as murder.

It’s onanism in English. And it’s rather stupid to call it that because Onan didn’t masturbate, he used the pull out method to avoid getting his sister-in-law pregnant with his brother’s kid. (yes, I know that sounds weird but that’s the story)

Apparently I have to say this again. Those are MY opinions. The goal of me sharing my opinions point out a position that I suspected would not be accepted by the scouts, at least your in interpretation of their rules. Your response was that atheists that did not believe the same as me could be accepted, which was irrelevant to the point. And here you insult me. Congratulations, you have confirmed my suspicions.

The UU MOU demonstrates that they still discriminate. Any Christian denomination is automatically acceptable, for atheists they have to pick and choose saying “you’re one of the good ones”.

If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.

OK, that’s irrelevant. Those were clearly MY opinions, a demonstration of how I refuse to label things with the term ‘god’, followed by the rationale for me doing so.

You are using a completely different, contradictory definition.

I am not using any definition of ‘god’, I am just saying that it has a definition, not any specific one just some definition, otherwise the term would be meaningless. And if I were to label anything ‘god’ it would be because that thing fulfilled the requirements for this unspecified definition. If I were to label something as ‘red’ it would be because it fulfills the requirements to be called ‘red’. If it did not fit the definition of ‘red’ I would not apply the label ‘red’. In the same way, I would not label something as ‘god’ unless I thought the label fit. If I were to label something as ‘god’ it would imply that there was something different about it when compared to something that I would refuse to apply the term ‘god’ to. And there is nothing that I would be willing to label ‘god’.

The UU memorandum of understanding is irrelevant. I am not a member, and I think most atheists are not either. People should not be required to join a church or a religion to join the scouts.

I don’t believe in any gods, and would never say that something was a god if I did not think it was a god. Consciousness is not a god, nature is not a god, the laws of thermodynamics are not gods. Labeling these things gods only serves to imply some sort of mystery thing about it when there is none, I would consider it lying to do so. Do you think they would accept me? I don’t.

If the religious aspects were truly left to the scouts and their families, outright atheists would simply be accepted, and there would not need to be a memorandum of understanding so that a specific organization could participate, because they would have simply been accept beforehand.

You are suggesting that it is acceptable to for scouts that do not believe in any god to lie and say that they do. Dishonesty goes against the scout principles.

Treating the oath as something that can be worked around using wordplay does nothing but make a complete mockery of the oath. We had this debate a over century ago when trial witnesses were required to swear an oath to god and atheists were prevented from being witnesses. The solution wasn’t to allow atheists to use god as a metaphor for reality, but to remove the requirement for a belief in a god.

Monkeys and apes

That’s redundant. Apes are monkeys. There has been a shift in how life is classified, and for the same reason that birds are now considered to be dinosaurs, apes are now considered to be monkeys.

Monkey is a common name that may refer to most mammals of the infraorder Simiiformes, also known as the simians. Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes. Thus monkeys, in that sense, constitute an incomplete paraphyletic grouping; however, in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard to their scope.