erickelly65

I dont pretend to know much about the background of anyone here or their history of posts. I do think the safety implications of any change to the requirements for leadership (i.e. allowing women to be Scoutmasters, or allow Homosexuals (male or female)would warrant a discussion of the operational implications (meaning what changes, if any, need to be made to our guidelines to ensure a safe environement for our youth (and adults)) To me, bringing those issues up that someone who is attracted to a particular gender may act on it and how do we mitigate that risk isnt irrational. Do I think that risk is managable and can be mitigated with the G2SS but still would have to be considered. Mervyn, It is my understanding that in Girl Scouts a male can be A leader but not THE leader of a troop. (much like the old BSA program that allowed women leaders but not women Scoutmasters) Also, just as you said, the Girl Scouts have a policy that there must be a female leader present. The boyscouts just have a requirement there be 2 leaders present (no gender requirements)

I personally am not a fan of the term homophobic as it get so cavalierly thrown about. I don't believe that anyone that thinks homosexuality is wrong is necessarilly "phobic" (some are some arent) The conotations of the word are by their nature inflammatory and there for dont advance the discussion.

Goldwing is write in that there is somewhat of a double standard against the straight male and what a threat we might be to young girls. You need look no further then our sisters in the GSUSA. They place significant limits on what leadership roles and level of participation men can have especially when compared to BSA. Having said that two wrongs dont make a right. Sidebar comment - why is it that so few people here fill out their profile information?(This message has been edited by erickelly65)(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

Well, we do allow straight men to be leaders around teenage girls in our Venturing programs.

Onehour wrote We would never think of allowing unrelated women to camp with our boys given all the possibilities for improper contact or even the appearance of improper contact. There is no rule that only related women (or men for that matter) can be adult leaders. Even if a leader is related to a boy in a Troop, they arent going to be related to all boys in the Troop. That is one of many reasons why we have the 2 deep leadership and separate accommodation policies in the G2SS. Onehour also wrote: Whether you think homosexuality is morally unclean, deviant, and unnatural, or whether you think it is just a violation of plain common sense to allow those sexually attracted to males to camp in close quarters with young males, excluding homosexuals is the only way to go. To follow this logic then we shouldnt allow (straight) women leaders either and we cant have a coed program at all because the leaders will be attracted the opposite portion of the youth membership (boys or girls). Thinking homosexually is wrong based on your religious and other beliefs may be a good reason to exclude them but, all other things being equal, I dont believe a gay man is inherently any more of a sexual threat to a boy then a straight woman. I have always thought that even you believe homosexuality is a sin, is it one that rises to the necessity of excluding said sinner from our program? My faith tells me we are ALL guilty of sin, so by that measure none of us can be scout leaders (and there has only been one person ever on the earth that would meat that leadership measure and hes been gone a couple thousand years). The question is, despite our sins and flaws, are we still capable of being ethical and responsible leaders for our youth. (I know lots of straight people I wouldnt want within a 100 miles of a scouting position and a few gay men, I think would be excellent leaders. It has to taken in the aggregate.) Some faiths have strong opinions against homosexual behavior. Others, while considering it a sin, welcome those people up to and including openly ordaining them as religious leaders. Still other faiths remain largely, if not completely, silent on sexuality. Since Scouting isnt of a particular faith, who says whos faiths moral compass should prevail in all these decisions? (This message has been edited by erickelly65)

This is a way tangent comment...Last night while channel surfing I came across a program on the History Channel that was discussing Gamma Ray Bursts and theory that in Earth's ancient past it was hit by such a burst and that burst and its initial effects and the lingering impact on the climate wiped out the trilobite's

The 10 Commandments are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Scouting is not a "Christian" organization but open to many faiths. To follow your line of thought, the Scouts shouldnt have other faiths involved either.

trilobites? thats just crazy talk.

The tough thing is deciding when ones view is standing ones ground on principle or it's just pig-headedness. From my own presonal experiences I feel scouting today has been much more swayed by the far right then it seemed to be when I was a Scout. As a Scouter and Parent, I worry about raising the youth of today. I think Scouting is a hugely powerful program and can have profound influences on the character and success of young people (it certainly was lifechanging for me as a child). Today, more than ever, it seems our youth are starved for positive role models (especially boys) and programs that will empower them. I think it better to make some adaptions and accomodations for others of differing view and therefore expand our reach to more youth then fail those youth and potentially doom them. For me its never been much of a stretch to consider accepting someone of a different faith versus someone of "no faith" (For me my faith is correct and the others therefore incorrect (so does it really matter if you worse no God versus the wrong one?) I just dont want Scouting to change so much it prevents me from giving the faith based scouting experience I want for my son and I dont feel I have to do that in a way that keeps others out. Do I know mechanically or programitically that would work?...nope but do I think it can be worked out?...yes.

Trev, Thanks for the info but for me its a "so what" point. For me, its never been about keeping atheists out as being able to keep the traditional faith elements in the program that support my beliefs. (My son belongs to the pack chartered at our church and if other packs want to have other standards that would be cool with me too) To paraphrase Lincoln stated in 1862: "If I could have scouting without allowing any atheists I would do it; and if I could have it by allowing all the atheists in I would do it; and if I could have it by allowing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Merlyn, So I assume then that to you there is no way to keep the "Duty to God" in the oath and Reverent in the scout law and not be an organization that is invidiously discriminatory. I didnt realize that the GS's allowed the substitution of "God" with a non-theistic alternative. Thanks for the info.

Molscouter, Thanks for the pointer. I am sure I'm having as much fun as Merlyn. I enjoy the back and forth of it all as I assume Merlyn does. Discussion like this is what makes this country great. We can be heated and even a bit testy at times but at the end of the day the peaceful interchange of believes and thoughts is a good thing. The only thing that would be better would be to do it all face to face over a few pints.

How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? What do you think of how the GSUSA handles it? For that matter, some BSA units allow atheists -- they deliberately ignore the policy. It's hardly a question of how to do it when it's being done. Merlyn, I am only questioning it because none of my suggestions (posted earlier) on how to accommodate were acceptable. In fact, when I suggested that very thing (doing what the GSUSA does) you scoffed at me. I wrote: I have no problem with people who are atheists. At the same time, I do want my child to participate in a BSA program that does espouse ones responsibility to God and a belief in a higher power. If someone that is an atheist wants to join and is willing to say the oath and pledge and follow the program as is and not interfere with my ability to teach (within the existing BSA program) my children the belief system I want them to follow, then more power to them and welcome to Scouting. You replied: So you don't mind admitting atheists as long as they're willing to lie and pretend to believe in a god. Well, I think that's as good an illustration why public schools have no business chartering packs. As an aside, the GSA promise: Girl Scouts of the USA On my honor, I will try: To serve God* and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law. The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate. ( I am not sure if God can be replaced with , Another question, what about boys and girls that didnt want to say the duty to country part?)

Sure. How about "How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor." I never said all atheists did this....just you.

Let me ask a high-level question. How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? (i.e. ....I will do my duty to God...., A Scout is Reverent, etc.) How can you run a youth program that teaches some youth a resposibility to a higher power is important but then turn around and tell others something else? And if you can't do both at the same time is any program that choses to persue the theistic option, inherently bad because it's selecting a path objectionable to the others that dont share that belief? How can you create a program that allows the religious to operate within their rights and does'nt oppress the rights of non-theists and vice-versa?

Merlyn wrote: erickelly65, I use the word "discriminate" to refer to, well, discrimination. I'm fully aware that there is legal and illegal discrimination. If I need to refer to legal or illegal discrimination specifically, I'll say so. I do consider the BSA's discrimination to be "bad", whether it's through, say, a private school (legal) or a public school (illegal). And if you don't want me to accuse you of whining, don't whine. And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part. Response So once again you are the master and measure of all. Someone is whining if you say they are and someone is disrepectful if you think they are. Let me play your game. You wrote "And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part. " My response is NO, you have accused me of this so you show me were I have written anything disrespectful of atheists.

From Merlyns post erickelly65 writes: You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK. Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination. Merlyn Responded I give up; why? That the BSA practices objectional discrimination is evident by people who object to it. My offense to your comment is your inference that discriminating on faith is invidious but earlier you agreed that some forms of discrimination are ok (see your post 0/23/2007: 8:32:58 AM below). So you accept some forms of discrimination but find the type the BSA uses as harmful and bad. Not just bad in the public forum.bad period (at school, at private churches, at the union hall that charters a pack, everywhere) RE: Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 8:32:58 AM quality ________________________________________ onehouraweekmy, you're the one equivocating on the word "discriminate"; I'm using it in the context of illegal discrimination, such as a public school discriminating against atheists. Public schools can discriminate in many ways (age, for example) but they can't discriminate on the basis of religion. Merlyn wrote: Here you state as fact that BSA supporters that think philly is giving the scouts a raw deal are Whining (You didnt state I think they are whiningyou stated they ARE whining without knowing for certain. I assume you base this on the belief that any view that might support the view the scouts are getting unfair treatment is patently ridiculous) (double standard oppression) You are incredulous when others might jump to such conclusions without mountains of hard facts and quotable references but you dont give anyone else one iota of the common respect you seem to demand. Hey, all I do is argue. I know people like you don't give atheists one iota of common respect. Now, what does the above quote have to do with "oppression" based on religion? Calling BSA supporters "whiners"? Sorry, that's free speech, something I support. I don't consider unfavorable opinions to be "oppression" -- that's just more whining. My response: You wrote as fact people like me dont give atheists one iota of common respect without really knowing anything about me (several people in my life would find that accusation laughable) and I certainly never have said anything in this forum that would support that claim. I simply am disrespectful because I want to practice my faith and have my son belong to a group of like thinking people with regard to spirituality (and I'm willing to fund it on my own...I'd like to see the government support us but its not a requirement) So its ok for you to argue and say what ever inflammatory thing youd like but I say you have a beef with religion and I get called a liar. Further you get to use free speech as your excuse to call people that dont agree with you whiners without knowing their underlying logic, belief and motivation. That isnt oppression.just proof of the double standard you use to here. Merlyn wrote: You dont need to agree, I could care less. The phrase is "I couldn't care less". Response: Sorry but either is acceptable (see below) The American Heritage Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996. 3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints 78. could care less / couldnt care less I could care less! you might say sometime in disgust. You might just as easily have said I couldnt care less and meant the same thing! How can this be? When taken literally, the phrase I could care less means I care more than I might, rather than I dont care at all. But the beauty of sarcasm is that it can turn meanings on their head, thus allowing could care less to work as an equivalent for couldnt care less. Because of its sarcasm, could care less is more informal than its negative counterpart and may be open to misinterpretation when used in writing. 1 The phrases cannot but and can but present a similar case of a positive and a negative meaning the same thing. For more on this, see cannot under Grammar.

Merlyn ---it isn't a "game"; I reply to specific statements. A lot of people, including yourself, often talk in vague generalities, but don't spell out what you mean. You wrote "your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith," yet you haven't said what I've said that IS oppressive. I have written about generalities because my view is that your are oppressive to people of faith is built from the general tone, vigor and disrespect with which you have responded to those of faith (or anyone that disagrees with you for that matter) but since it is soooo important to you heres some good ones with which I take umbrage. Thursday, 10/18/2007: 12:22:52 PM You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK. Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination. (To me, this defamation is oppresive_ Not to mention being mentioned in the same breath as the KKK (To me this is way oppressive) (and Im overstepping the bounds of reason to not think you have an axe to grind with religionplease) Posted: Thursday, 10/18/2007: 12:36:39 PM Then you wrote And once again, treating the scouts the SAME as every other private organization results in whining from some BSA supporters. Here you state as fact that BSA supporters that think philly is giving the scouts a raw deal are Whining (You didnt state I think they are whiningyou stated they ARE whining without knowing for certain. I assume you base this on the belief that any view that might support the view the scouts are getting unfair treatment is patently ridiculous) (double standard oppression) You are incredulous when others might jump to such conclusions without mountains of hard facts and quotable references but you dont give anyone else one iota of the common respect you seem to demand. Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 6:47:12 PM Here you wrote How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you. Sorry but this is just mean spirited, sarcastic and assuming you the first random clue about where Im coming from, what my real belief system is and why I support the Scouting program. (caustic, assumptive oppression) Its ok for you to jump to conclusions about others motives but we mere mortals best mind our Ps and Qs. Plus, MR CIVIL RIGHTS I find the phrase Thats might white of you patently racist and divisive. Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 11:09:06 PM Finally you wrote eolesen writes: I'll be praying for you, Merlyn. And I'll think for you, eolesen. I find this offensive. I assume you are inferring those that pray need their thinking done for them. And what person of faith would be offended by that? (patently anti-religion) If not then your are attacking the mental capabilities of a fellow forum member, equally offensive. (Just not criquet) So there you have it. My list of items. You dont need to agree, I could care less.

Merlyn, I disagree.and as an aside; I believe the courts are mistaken in their current stance/interpretation of separation of church and state. Secondly you wrote The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. but you balked at my suggestion that the program allow any member but keep the same program (as being mighty white of me) so I assume you think that no religious group can be supported by the government even if it doesnt discriminate. I dont mind the current state with schools not supporting scouts or whoever. I wish they would but that isnt the current state of affairs. I'm a product of public schooling but never have been affiliated with a Scout unit chartered at a public school and there are none in my district (don't know there ever were any) so the point is purely a philosophical one. I have no interest in playing the you said X at HH:MMpm on October 23rd, 2007 game. You believe (and let me know if im mistaken) that the government cant support a group that discriminates based on religious belief. I dont agree with that stance and the fact the courts have ruled that way doesnt sway me one way or the other (I will completely abide by the law and that ruling but I think it is a mistake...just my humble opinion) This line of discussion is wore out. You can accept my earlier comments about misjudging you without knowing more or you can reject them. Nothing more I can do about it and its not progressing the flow of ideas on this topic. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump and thats all I got to say bout that

Merlyn, You wrote What, specifically, do I advocate that you consider "oppressive"? Given my view of equal and fair neutral treatment by the government (which I know we dont see eye to eye on) I find your statement; I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support oppressive. It seeks to hold an organization to a different standard from others based on a religious belief.

Merlyn Well, here's where you can actually contribute by quoting something I've written that you consider "oppressive". I've written a fair amount, so I would hope you can quote something I've written to support your opinion. I find your statements and general tone on faith and government to be hostile in a Prima facie way. Sure enough the BSA has had a sweet deal for a while with Philly. It worked out for Philly too as it got this great building constructed. To me that sweet deal is Philly refused to grant others that deal back in the 20s (In todays world I dont think any government in the US would give that kind of deal to any charity!!) Given the new legal/social landscape perhaps a better solution to the issue then a 200k bill would be to have the Building shared with a variety programs along with BSA. However, even with my above belief, I do wish to temper my statement and agree with you I dont have a significant knowledge of your beliefs and position nor you of mine. While deeply experienced in scouting (~about 35 years worth) I am a newbie to this forum and dont have all the background and history. Given that I should have striven to give the greater benefit of the doubt and been more tolerant in the same way I would like to be treated. As for my thought on Atheists joining the scouts not being magnanimous, to be honest I cant come up with a better answer. To me, there are three options. One, the status quo retaining a faith based element to the program. Two, drop the duty to God elements and become a completely secular organization. Three, develop a multi-tracked program with a religious and non-religious path. For me, the first option is the only viable one. Its very selfish but I want a scouting program for my son that includes the elements of faith. There are a plethora of secular extracurricular activities he can (and does) belong to that allow him access to and experience with a wide variety of beliefs and lifestyles (sports, art, music etc) If you go with option two, then the current scouting program becomes just one more secular extracurricular activity (not without value but not as powerful as it is now (my opinion)). Option three, while good on paper, I believe wouldnt work well in execution (again my opinion given my program background). The only other option would be to create a separate non-faith scouting program. The WOSM may very well require a single national org (ya got me ; )) , I know in reality that isnt the case in Germany. Secondly, there are many bona fide scouting programs that dont belong to WOSM. And thirdly, an atheistic scouting program wouldnt meet WOSMs requirements for faith although it appears programs in some countries have worked around this (Just an FYI) To me a program that follows the tenets and program outlined by Baden-Powell is a scouting program. At the end of the day we have to come up with a way to co-exist that allows all of us (regardless of faith (or lack there of)) to freely pursue our beliefs, not have others beliefs forced upon us and learn to respect that the each of displaying our beliefs is acceptable.

"I (have) written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters." Packsaddle the issue lies in my belief of what "neutral" means in the above statement. It seems you and Merlyn believe (much taking the risk of being called a liar again...woe is me) that to be neutral means there is no place for religion in the public forum. I believe that neutral means there is room for ALL in the public forum (religions, belief systems, political and social groups, etc) and that the government becomes non-neutral when it givers greater access to one group to the detriment of others. I have no issue with it being within the rights of Philly or any public school to not support Scouting. I don't feel they did anything outside of their legal rights. I am not crying fowl on either stance. Having said that doing what is within the law isnt necessarily the same as doing what is right or best (Knowing that that is a subjective term measured differently by each individual - its how I feel...feel free to think differently if you like and act accordingly. thats how democracy works) Merlyn, think what you will, I am not a liar. I find you to be openly hostile to religion (my opinion and sorry if thats not the case) and your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith (all faiths). I have made gestures that keeping governments role in scouting distant, as you would like, might be the best alternative we can arrive at in today's society only to be sarcastically dismissed by you with a few pejorative phrases thrown in for good measure. You have no interest in having an open, interactive and intelligent discussion on the views and perceptions of various people on this topic. Anything short of complete capitulation to your line of thinking gets attacked and vilified.

Okoff come the gloves. First lets get some facts straight Merlyn responded to my post that If youre an atheist and want a secular scouting experience, go create it. (The US scouting program is in the minority in having only one Boy Scouting program in our country) With No, that's actually a WOSM requirement. Other countries have all their scouting orgs as part of one umbrella organization to satisfy WOSM. To be blunt, you dont know what youre talking about. One simple example, Germany has over 150 scouting associations and federations of all flavors most belonging to the world scouting movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_Germany Further Merlyn wrote: erickelly65 writes: I wrote If people want the government to yank funding for our program because of that stance, fine. I dont agree with it but perhaps that is as fair and balanced an arrangement as we can arrive upon. Merlyn responded How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you. Once again you seek to defame my view as the oppressor because I think group of particular belief systems should be given fair access and support from public organizations. I think they should. Regardless if they are like Scouting with its view on faith or an atheistic youth development program, or a wiccan program. My only test would be that these groups arent promoting hate or violence against others. You want fair and equal, fine lets have it and let all have access and support regardless of faith (or lack there off) but thats not what you really want. You want a state whos religion IS atheism and all the rest of us have to hide our beliefs, with your ilk there is no place for faith in the public square. As for your comment That's mighty white of you., in short its hugely inappropriate in this forum. You are a sad pathetic little man. Finally Merlyn responded to my statement that I have no problem with people who are atheists. At the same time, I do want my child to participate in a BSA program that does espouse ones responsibility to God and a belief in a higher power. If someone that is an atheist wants to join and is willing to say the oath and pledge and follow the program as is and not interfere with my ability to teach (within the existing BSA program) my children the belief system I want them to follow, then more power to them and welcome to Scouting. Merlyn Stated So you don't mind admitting atheists as long as they're willing to lie and pretend to believe in a god. Well, I think that's as good an illustration why public schools have no business chartering packs. First off, I dont subscribe to your Litmus Test that a group with ANY religious belief shouldnt be chartered by a public school. I think it would be fine if there was REAL fair and equal treatment, access and support provided by the school/government regardless of religious or other belief. As far as my comment on admitting atheist, let me spell it out for you in small, simple words so you can understand. I dont care WHO is admitted to the program as long as I dont have to change one IOTA of how I pursue this program for my son. I am trying to practice my faith and use the scouting program to advance within my child a line of reason, beliefs and morals to which I subscribe. I dont hold any ill will to others of other beliefs and preferences as can be seen in my relationships with friends, neighbors and professional colleagues. They can live their life as they best see fit and well they should. All I demand is that I be given the same. There are, however, many that think My views arent supportable in the public forum and if I want to have them I have to have them on my own and in private. All I am saying is I disagree and view any interference by outside groups (governmental or other) as an invasion of my freedom of religion and association.

understand the view that a public organization shouldnt sponsor a selective/private organization. However, I disagree with the general assertion that a group subscribing to a particular belief system that makes belief in that view a requirement of membership is victimizing (aka "discriminating against" in the legal sense) others that don't subscribe to those beliefs. i.e. Muslim's are not victimizing me by not letting me enter their mosque, nor Masons that wont allow me access to their lodge, etc. How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor. I am not violating your civil rights when I want my son to belong to a program that professes a duty to God and a belief that a scout is Reverent. If youre an atheist and want a secular scouting experience, go create it. (The US scouting program is in the minority in having only one Boy Scouting program in our country) If there was such a long line of people wanting to join, scouting for all would be kicking our rear-ends. The sad thing is that those screaming about the scouts stances on homosexuality and atheism dont give a rats-rear about the Scouting program, the benefits it brings to boys and our society as a whole. They only seek to progress their particular agenda and then move on to tilt at the next windmill they find. If people want the government to yank funding for our program because of that stance, fine. I dont agree with it but perhaps that is as fair and balanced an arrangement as we can arrive upon. If you are going to make me chose between my religious belief and a little bit of money, Ill gladly give up the later. It will take some time to adjust the programs, their chartering orgs and the funding base but I am sure the BSA will adapt and overcome. And we are doing quite well here in Houston (numbers on a whole are slightly off as of the last few years but up this year (My pack has had 90+% growth in the last 5 years). As a fund raiser for BSA, I have found no shortage of individuals, business and other organizations willing to crack open a checkbook. Sam Houston Area Council broke the 1 million dollar mark in last years family FOS campaign. The rumors of the BSAs impending demise are over stated. I have noted in this forum before, I believe the BSA should re-assess its stance on the membership of homosexuals. My faith leads me to believe that I should accept them as Gods children even if I believe their lifestyle misguided. (Love the sinner, hate the sin) I am less open to the idea of removing the faith and duty to God elements of the program. I have no problem with people who are atheists. At the same time, I do want my child to participate in a BSA program that does espouse ones responsibility to God and a belief in a higher power. If someone that is an atheist wants to join and is willing to say the oath and pledge and follow the program as is and not interfere with my ability to teach (within the existing BSA program) my children the belief system I want them to follow, then more power to them and welcome to Scouting. Otherwise I say neigh.

I think the government should provide access to a variety of not-for-profits. If a jewish, christian, muslim or atheist group wants to have a softball league only open to their respective belief system and the school has the facilities to have games...go for it. So long as access to those resources is allowed to all, I don't see a problem. As long it is not a group espousing hate or violence against those outside there belief system, I think we should all have access. We all pay our taxes.