Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, you obviously aren't going to give any credence to anything I say, so you'll have to get the information yourself.

Ed, write to these city officials yourself. Get your own first-hand information.

FireKat writes: Explain how helping the rich and their sports complexes is equal treatment? Supposedly, it improves the local economy and is justified on that basis. In any case, there's no conflict with the first amendment like there is for government funded social programs that discriminate on the basis of religion.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

FireKat writes: This may be a bit of a hijack but why is there some much against an organization trying to use tax/donation dollars to help kids when some governments spend million to support private businesses like auto mfg and the biggest on that bugs me sport franchises. If it was to help ALL kids, fine. If it's to help all kids except Catholics/Jews/whatever, that might have flown some decades ago, but not today. I guess it is OK as long as God is left out. But the really strange thing is that these places are also rented to bible thumpers at times. How can they preach in a place built by tax dollars? I guess money talks. You really have a problem understanding "equal treatment" Rent property to religious groups? Fine, if it's the same rent as anyone else. Bible thumpers, Koran thumpers, atheists -- all get the same rate. Public funds to help poor kids? Fine, if you don't exclude kids for having the "wrong" religious views.

Yes I do, Ed. But it seems you don't accept email from city officials as proof.

Ed writes: Got caught doing what? You have no proof that the participants of the clinic had to subscribe to the DRP or join the BSA, so the BSA was doing nothing to get caught for! Which is why they dropped the contract, right Ed? Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense. FireKat writes: Your statement about Scouting For All do not appear to jive with their positions. Which statements? Be SPECIFIC and QUOTE SOMETHING I'VE WRITTEN. I did a fast look over the site and fully expected to see it full of your type of rantings. Imagine my surprise when I see that they support the BSA!! They support "scouting" as it was and ought to be. They do not support the discriminatory policies of the current BSA. I really do not think that they would like what you are claiming. SFA does not support the BSA defrauding HUD, and I'm writing a press release for SFA on this with the full support of Scott Cozza.

No; your questions obviously aren't genuine, and they have nothing to do with what Scouting For All does.

Beavah writes: I reckon Merlyn has run out of rational arguments. Beavah, that's totally intellectually dishonest of you. You'll note that THROUGHOUT this entire thread, I have been posting links supporting my statements. YOU, however, have posted NOTHING to support your wild accusations that the BSA can legally use HUD grants for their discriminatory programs. Zilch. I have NOT run out of arguments, but I HAVE run out of patience with people like you.

reposted with the parts the moderators don't like removed: Beavah writes: The BSA itself is not a party to the HUD grant nor directly subject to the HUD regulations. Wrong. It is altogether likely that the BSA was never asked by the cities to certify non-discrimination based on religion. Wrong again. Here's what the city manager of Colorado Springs said in part of her email to me: I did receive a non-discrimination clause from the BSA chapter in Colorado Springs and will be sending a copy of that to you along with our final determination If Merlyn has any real evidence that the cities demanded and were given such a statement by one of the BSA councils, he should feel free to share that, eh? Given above. Ergo, no fraud. And, to be honest, Merlyn's accusations of= fraud sure look an awful lot like libel. Beavah, now you're so vehement about NOT admitting that the BSA acts dishonestly that you're actually now trying to say I'M libeling them. Wow, you're really far gone, you know that? Significantly, as I read this, the cities could still choose to contract with the BSA. There is no obligation that an individual contractor not discriminate, just that the city in its administration of the grant not discriminate. Significantly, you are not a lawyer. A city, for example, could use several different contractors= to provide the same services to different groups. The city could= contract with a Muslim group to provide counseling services to Muslim residents, a Christian group to provide counseling to Christians, and a University to provide counseling services to everyone else. Ah, separate but equal. Riiiight. In fact, I believe that sort of thing happens relatively frequently, especially with denominational contractors like Catholic Social Services. In fact, you're wrong again. Are you claiming Catholic Social Services gets public funding but refuses their services to people based on religion?! So if the BSA is providing soccer clinics for the faithful Latino community and Boys & Girls clubs are providing soccer clinics for other program beneficiaries, I'm not sure there's necessarily any problem here at all. At least not any federal one. And of course we'd need a real, live program beneficiary to truly be discriminated against in order for this to be actionable, eh? We'd need a real, live PROGRAM, too. Or did you already forget that, as soon as the city asked about religious discrimination, the Los Padres council CANCELLED THEIR CONTRACT? Ed writes: It seems the BSA are the ones who refused the funds not as you have depicted it. Ed, what are you talking about now? The BSA cancelled the contract when they got caught. local1400 writes: Merlyn writes "You know, maybe you should join an organization that teaches ethics." I am ecstatic you have suggested that. Well I've been to the site of that group you hold in such high esteem, Scouting for All. Why? SFA is not an organization that teaches ethics, it's an advocacy group. Of course, the BSA isn't an organization that teaches ethics, either. I actually couldn't find any info on any unit in any area, or a council either. Because you apparently can't read, either. And since there appears to be NO SFA "troop" in my hometown, it appears that Scouting for All isn't really for ALL. They are excluding me and anyone in my town who may want to join! THATS DISCRIMINATION! You can certainly join SFA, just go here, fill out a form, and send in $20: http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/forms/volunteerform.html We even take people like yourself, who can't seem to find and/or read what SFA is about: http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/mission.html

[ Returned to sender for editing ] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[ Returned to sender for editing ] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah writes: Nah, Merlyn, once again yeh misunderstand. I believe that Berkeley Sea Scouts and da Cradle of Liberty council have a right to offer their services to whichever groups they are able to serve. No Beavah, YOU misunderstand. Both the Sea Scouts and the C of L council have been acting like their free berths and $1/year headquarters are something they DESERVE. They aren't. They're gifts from the government. And the governments of Berkeley and Philadelphia have decided to stop the free gifts. I believe the test for receiving government monies should be an organization's ability to serve a public purpose or need. Doesn't matter if the people or organizations who serve the public are religious or not, space aliens or not. Doesn't matter if they only serve one of the needs of a segment of da population; we all have limited talents. Well, wake me up when your utopia becomes reality. Sounds like the segregated 1950s to me, when being white was a big plus in terms of what kinds of public services were available. In a diverse, pluralistic society we work on common challenges together, as partners. The BSA does not. Got that? It's like asking blacks to work with the KKK.

local1400 writes: Nope. I can't see it, when it pales in comparison to the criminal behavior of our elected officials or corporate America perpetrated almost daily. Ah, I see, the BSA can be dishonest as long as even more dishonest people can be pointed to. It's OK to steal people's wallets as long as other people rob banks. You know, maybe you should join an organization that teaches ethics. The BSA seems to have warped you. Beavah writes: Yeh keep making a claim that the BSA "signed nondiscrimination agreements" but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Because you deliberately aren't looking. I haven't been willin' to dig into this as far as I have some of your prior allegations, but it strikes me from the way these things are usually handled that there probably were no such agreements. Do yeh have a reference or are yeh just making an assumption? http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment HUD on CDBGs http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/rulesandregs/laws/sec5309.cfm nondiscrimination reqs for the above And I keep telling people that the money will be re-allocated to an HONEST organization that will honor their word to follow the HUD requirements Maybe, maybe not, eh? What do you mean, "maybe not"? Are you saying the city manager lied to me when she wrote "This funding will be reallocated to other eligible non-profit agencies at the next City Council meeting"? But yeh also have to consider whether any re-allocated money will be used better. Better than inflating the membership numbers of a dishonest, private organization? I'd say anything short of embezzlement would be an improvement. An organization may meet your unique definition of honest As opposed to YOUR unique definition, where BSA officials can try to use funds that require nondiscrimination on the basis of religion to pay for a "no atheists allowed" BSA program? Me, I'd rather see my tax money used as well as possible to serve kids, rather than simply allocated to serve ideology. Like the BSA's ideology? Oh, another special exemption on your part. The BSA can do no wrong in your eyes. Ed babbles: You should be on dancing with the stars Merlyn! What are you babbling about now, Ed?

Ed, the Los Padres council never heard a word from me. A city official contacted them on whether atheists could join, and the council responded by cancelling the program. Why'd they cancel the program, Ed? And I keep telling people that the money will be re-allocated to an HONEST organization that will honor their word to follow the HUD requirements, instead of the dishonest frauds at the BSA, so kids aren't losing out on anything except the opportunity to be part of a dishonest, immoral private club that pretends to build "character."

Beavah writes: If yeh don't want the gift, it's OK to politely decline it. It's not OK to demand that they buy you the gift you want. Make sure you tell this to the Cradle of Liberty council and the Berkeley Sea Scouts. Oh, and make sure you tell this to yourself over in the HUD fraud thread. The BSA is not *entitled* to HUD grants, they have to meet the same requirements as everyone else.

Beavah writes: Merlyn is right about the HUD regulation, but the regulation applies to HUD in its distribution of funds, not to the BSA - it's HUDs role to do due diligence I see this all the time - when the BSA charters a pack to a public school, it's ALWAYS the SCHOOL'S fault, never the BSA's fault, even though the BSA is the one who neglects to inform the public school that atheists can't join the school's pack. Now, it's HUD's fault, NOT the BSA's fault, when the BSA falsely signs a nondiscrimination agreement that it has no intention of upholding. No, it's not the fault of the BSA councilmembers who commit fraud and sign a nondiscrimination agreement, it's HUD's fault. You people can't even see criminal behavior when it comes to the BSA. Defraud the public? Hey, fine, if it increases our declining cub scout membership. After all, what's a little fraud and violating the civil rights of atheists if it helps get more kids into our program to develop good morals? Now, if you'll pardon me, my irony meter just exploded.

FireKat says: Everyone sees your misquotes for your chest thumping. You loose all credibility that way. What "misquotes"? So far, you have no credibility, "loosed" or not. Beavah writes: I dunno, Merlyn. What's your position on affirmative action? What has that got to do with BSA councils deliberately violating HUD requirements? Would it be OK with you if an all-white organization dishonestly received a grant and only admitted white kids? How is this any different from the dishonest BSA councils? Or is it a violation of the civil rights of the rest of us? You know, you are perfectly free to sue over affirmative action. Many people have. But again, you're just tossing out a red herring. AA has nothing to do with dishonest BSA councils. Is Social Security discrimination by age because folks under 50 can't retire and start receiving it? Of course it is; it's also completely legal. Are you saying BSA councils ought to be able to ignore laws they don't like?

Ed writes: Do we know for sure the kids that participated in this clinic were required to join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate in the clinic? No we don't. And without knowing that, any action taken is wrong. Ed, I was TRYING TO FIND OUT when the Los Padres council pulled the plug. Merlyn, do you have indisputable proof the kids participating in this clinic had to either join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate? The official BSA website says: Boys in Soccer and Scouting will work on the same achievements and requirements as all other boys in Cub Scouting, earning their Bobcat, Tiger Cub, Wolf, Bear, and Webelos badges, and more. You can't earn those badges without being a member of the Cub Scouts. Nessmuk writes: The attacks on the BSA by the athiest/homosexual nuts (technically sufficient terms) have hurt the inner city and under-served programs the most.. Because, for some reason, the BSA has no shame in misusing public funds to pay for their "no atheists or gays" private programs. When the BSA stops using public funding to discriminate against atheists, I'll put the napalm away. Amazing ! And you are Scouter !???! Shame ! I am not a scouter. I have too much self-respect for that.

Beavah writes: Fact is, you can't reach the kids and families in at-risk, high-poverty environments without workin' with the Churches. At least not without greatly reducin' your effectiveness. I don't agree, but in any case programs that don't exclude atheists are available, some even run by churches. There weren't any kids actually denied access, eh? There's really no way to say this for certain, because the Boy Scouts' exclusion of atheists is fairly well known, and an atheist family (or boy) may not have even attempted to join a group known to exclude atheists, because what would be the point? Public rejection? So there might have been someone denied access merely due to the BSA's known discrimination against atheists. That's the problem with these tactics in my mind. Yeh do more damage by scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners polarizing tactics than yeh do by goin' along with things in small ways when the net effect is positive. Beavah, how long would the BSA have continued to have public schools as one of their largest chartering partners, while still excluding atheists, if atheists had to "get along" with official, yet highly illegal, discrimination by their own public schools? It had already been going on for 20 YEARS if you start counting from the time Paul Trout got kicked out. So noxious is the effect of such tactics that yeh even get presidential candidates talking about constitutional changes to address such issues - changes that I think most all of us would object to - but dat's where polarizing tactics push things, eh? Oh, if you want polarizing, make atheists official second-hand citizens and allow the government to discriminate against them. You really want another civil war? Because that's what you'd get. When we're talkin' about $5K out of the entire federal budget for a kids' soccer program highly leveraged by volunteers, we're in the noise. Better to spend our time on somethin' of substance. Yeah, atheists HAVE no civil rights. If HUD funds are deliberately misused by lying BSA officials, who cares? Only Jews^H^H^H^Hatheists get screwed, and they aren't popular, so why not allow official discrimination against them?

First, that still won't save HUD grants, or bring back public schools as chartering organizations; public money can't be used to proselytize theism. Second, are atheists allowed to argue that gods are myths?

A few points on CalicoPenn's post: From what I've read on the internets, some of the pilot Soccer & Scouting councils admitted girls and some didn't. The one that I've read that did apparently signed the girls on via learning For Life (but the boys through Cub Scouts). I would only find it acceptable if all youth were signed up through L4L (of course, then the council wouldn't get any 'cub scout' members out of it, which appears to be the whole point of S&S). My emails to the city of Santa Maria brought up the ambiguity of how kids are admitted into the S&S program, which is why I requested contact information at the Los Padres council. At that point, of course, the Los Padres council cancelled their agreement (but I'm still trying to get more information, and a copy of the nondiscrimination agreement that was signed). Yes, I know that CDBG also includes sex; it looks like having some programs boy- or girl- only is accepted practice if they are about equal. The funding for the Los Padres council was identical to the amount awarded to a local Girl Scouts council. Another point, city funds can't be used to discriminate on the basis of religion, either. And finally, in the case of the Pike's Peak council, I brought up this identical issue in 2005, but about a grant that had paid for a program that had already passed. The Colorado Springs manager said they still had the paperwork from that, and that the Pike's Peak council was asked about the program. The council said that "participation was open to all boys." If the PP council's packs, troops, and crews are NOT "open to all boys" (and it's pretty clear they aren't), I have no problem saying they are committing deliberate fraud, given that this same issue was raised earlier.

Beavah, sorry, you can't assume there are no atheists in any target population, even one made up entirely of, say, priests. An organization that excluded only Australian aboriginals would not be eligible for a HUD grant, even when there are no Australian aboriginals within 200 miles. People move. And you're still trying to whitewash the Los Padres council's dishonesty. They COULD have CHANGED the contract to be some sort of Learning For Life program, so they could honor the contract they signed. But since they never intended to honor it, they simply cancelled it when they were caught. Yeah, everything fine & dandy until you get caught. And I've said twice that the funds will be redistributed to honest organizations, so your red herring about how I'm "hurting" the community isn't true. I'm hurting the dishonest Los Padres council, true, but they deserve it for lying to the public in the first place.

Local1400, I'm the midwest regional director of Scouting For All, which advocates that the BSA change its discriminatory policies. As part of that, SFA is opposed to using HUD grants to unlawfully fund BSA programs that violate HUD requirements (all of which have nondiscrimination requirements on the basis of religion). Yes, I do have proof. Look at the links I gave for the Pike's Peak council. The proposed budget says that HUD funding is used for packs, troops, and crews. The national BSA controls membership, and does not allow atheists into any packs, troops, or crews. Yes, I've even called BSA officials at their national HQ on two occassions, specifically about publically-financed BSA units, and asked if atheists could join these units paid for with public money, and both times, I was told no. Rather pointedly, neither of these programs exist any longer. And I can't register as a member of the BSA, local1400. I'm an atheist, and I'm honest.

local1400, still no comment on the dishonesty of the Los Padres council? Do you approve of BSA councils using HUD grants for programs that violate terms of those HUD grants by lying to city officials? Maybe you'd approve of hitting old ladies with lead pipes to take their purses to fund BSA programs as well...

And we hear from two more hypocrites who are blind to the BSA lying to get money and misuse it to discriminate against atheists. Look, CDBG funds have requirements. Dishonest organizations like the Boy Scouts should not lie and sign nondiscrimination agreements to fund their discriminatory programs. The BSA can use CDBG funds to operate nondiscriminatory programs via Learning For Life -- but it looks like the Los Padres council wasn't interested in doing that. Instead of changing their contract to use the money to fund a program open to ALL (like they falsely promised), they just cancelled. They apparently aren't interested in helping kids, only upping the body count of Cub Scouts by running a Soccer & Scouting program. And they'd like to steal money from the public to do it. Oh, but now people are whining about how I'm a meanie and "denying" these services -- when I've already stated that these funds, instead of being spent on the BSA's "private" club, will be redistributed by the city to some organization that's honest and will honor their nondiscrimination agreement, so that the public is really served, instead of the local BSA council's body count to prop up their falling membership numbers. And hardly a word against the Los Padres council for lying in the first place; no, it's all MY fault for shining a light on the BSA's duplicity. Oh, but when it comes to the BSA's dishonesty regarding atheists, many here are completely, insanely blind. Addendum: OGE's article came up while I was editing this, so just to clarify the 'two hypocrites' refer to local1400 and Pappy. Tootles!(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)