No limit on atheism. We have had several atheist kids (whose parents are lawyers) involved with no problems. It was not due to any threats of legal action or anything. The kid needed to deal with the fact that scouting was founded, in part, on religious principles and had to deal with it, but we did not force any religion on the kid. Granted, there is no "religious" award for atheists, but there is one for just about anything else out there. It's the only one that both adult leaders (called "scouters") and the scouts can earn other than being put up for membership in the Order of the Arrow.

Citation needed on religion part. Where do you get this bit about non-christians not being OK in Boy Scouts? Seriously. I was very involved in Boy Scouting for quite some time - I went from being an assistant den leader to being a unit commissioner (oversees several packs/troops and the adult leaders) and never encountered any religious bias, and this is in the "deep south" in the USA. Yes, there is the bit about "a scout is reverent", but that is easily interpreted in ways that work even for atheists. The outdoor badges still require being outdoors. (Now, the Girl Scouts have a "cooking" badge that does not involve any actual cooking, but that's a different story entirely.) And there are Venture crews for co-ed scouting experiences.

You have got to be kidding me. They protested Fred Rogers?!? That is going way too far! They protest people who gave their lives for their country, and they protest Fred Rogers? I agree - being deemed picket-worthy by these gits would be an honour as I would be counted among such great people as Fred Rogers and the heroes who gave their lives for this country. I'm sorry. I grew up watching Mr. Rogers back in the late 60s and early 70s. That was one man whose heart was clearly and undeniably in the right place and who gave it all in his own special way. My kids watched him, too. RIP, Mr. Rogers.

Even the Ferengi know better... Rule of Acquisition Number 60: Keep your lies consistent.

Citation needed for the bit about the book of Genesis. It's part of the Torah, the five books of Moses that are foundational to Judaism. I have no idea where you studied religion, but my recently-passed uncle, who was Jewish, would certainly have disagreed with your statement that it was the Catholic church that gave the book of Genesis its authority. He taught me enough about his beliefs for me to know that.

Except that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew (most of the old testament), Aramaic (portions of the old testament), and Chaldean (portions of the old testament) and Koine Greek (new testament). The Latin was a translation.

Banning guns (or "hacker tools" or anything like that) seems to be mostly for the purpose having an additional thing with which to charge someone when arresting them. It's much like "resisting arrest". That way they can negotiate the suspect's cooperation and confession by offering to drop some of the "lesser" charges while they keep the charges that really matter. They're mostly "secondary enforcement" concepts even though they can be considered primary offenses. (A "secondary" offense is something for which you cannot be ticketed or arrested if that is the only thing but you can be charged if you're charged with something else, too. Seatbelt laws in many states in the USA are secondary offenses.) Honestly, when are they going to find out that someone is carrying a gun or has "hacker tools" unless they're already investigating the person for something else? I'm not aware of police (yet) doing random checks on people to see if they're carrying firearms without a permit. And, as may others have already pointed out, if someone's decided to commit a crime, the decision to break the law has already been made. Do you really think they're going to think "oh, no! I could be charged with illegal possession of a hacking tool when I use the hacking tool to break into the bank's computer."?

Not just guns... In the USA, there are several states where simply OWNING lockpicks is a crime unless you are a law enforcement officer, locksmith, or P.I.

You are so close... I won a decent (about $200 - six channel radio, etc.) RC helicopter at a conference, and I left it in the box since there was no point in taking it out before I flew back to my house. Wrong answer. The TSA folks at the St. Louis airport required me to take it out of the box and show them every piece in the box. Apparently, there is some sort of thing with bringing flying RC things onto an airplane. Granted, I'm 45 and I normally don't travel with RC toys, so I am not entirely sure if it was because it was RC or because it could fly, but the TSA agent gave me the impression that it was because it was RC and it could fly (so, an RC car would not have been a problem, apparently). Does anyone know anything more about this?

Desperation is the true mother of invention. These Lybian rebels are determined, and it's impressive what people can do when faced with something that important to them but a limited budget.

The idea is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. First line of the second paragraph: "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... " (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)

Several states already do not tax food: NH has no sales tax. MA (at least when I lived there) does not tax food or clothing. SC just, a few years ago, increased the overall sales tax by one percent (to 6) and stopped taxing food and, I think, clothing. I'm sure there are other states that do not tax food and clothing as well.

(In my experience, the "food" tax exemption does not apply to restaurants.)

I agree that taxing the "essentials" is a bad approach. South Carolina even has "Tax Holidays" near the beginning of the school year when certain other items are not taxed in order to make preparing for school a little more affordable. (These "other items" include computers.)

Your proposal is interesting, but I can see some potential problems with it with regard to the overall concept of free expression.
Let us consider a page on Facebook that is critical of Islam. Who would be considered appropriate to moderate that page? Most (if not all) Muslims would mark it inappropriate or offensive because it offends their beliefs, yet to Christains or others it may be considered informative and appropriate.
As a conservative Christian (I am not saying you are), would you want your 13-year-old to have access to page that actively promotes the homosexual lifestyle? I know many conservative Christians, given that I live in the "deep south", and I know they would find such a page offensive. Who is best to moderate those pages?
The idea is good to try to have people judging the page be those more likely to care, but you have to draw the line somewhere or you will have too much censorship because people don't like their prophet being insulted or something like that.

This seems like a good idea, except that it could still allow a "mob rule" effect. I would contend that having Facebook employees metamoderate, at least in disputed cases, would be a more effective approach overall. Your approach, however, could easily seed the system.

That is why the metamoderation is done by Facebook employees, who should be familiar with the TOS. It should work itself out eventually, with obvious abusers being given low reputations so that they are never asked to moderate again.