Merlyn_LeRoy

What do you mean "would happen"? That's what the BSA said years ago. That's what courts have stated, such as in the Balboa Park case. That's what the BSA's own lawyers say on the official BSA website: http://www.bsalegal.org/city-sold-out-scouts-214.asp The City Council Sold Out the Boy Scouts By George A. Davidson ... Indeed, in February 2003, the city agreed with the Boy Scouts in documents submitted to the court that while Boy Scouts is not a religion and is completely nonsectarian, Boy Scouts is a religious organization. ... Davidson, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, is legal counsel for Boy Scouts of America and Desert Pacific Council, Boy Scouts of America

Government-supported discrimination doesn't fit their agenda. Things were fine until the BSA decided it was a private club that needed to discriminate against people.

I'd go to the airport and buy Euros.

Bob, I know you've been away from scouter.com for a while, but public schools can no longer charter packs or troops.

Are you sure you don't mean his cousin G.K. Chesterton? A.K. joined Mosley's fascists before WWII, and later was a founder of Britain's racist National Front party. Seems to be an antidote much worse than the disease.

Good thing that BSA-hating ACLU is still around.

Fred, it isn't a "school-sponsored" venturing crew. I checked this a while back. Public schools can't charter venturing crews, remember?

I think Huckabee's remark about amending the constitution to conform to (his) god's standards qualifies as a stupid mistake...

hops_scout writes: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf According to the definition found at dictionary.com these items fit the description. The Iraq Survey Group, the Bush administration's own commission on investigating WMDs in Iraq said: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter a policy ISG attributes to Baghdads desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered. Like I said earlier, old chemical weapons dating from circa 1988 (even though they can be hazardous and potentially lethal) don't count as WMDs.

Like I said earlier, if Bush supposedly knew what weapons Iraq had, why use a vague term like "weapons of mass destruction"? It's so it could match nearly anything that was found. But nothing close was found. So what were those WMDs that Iraq was supposed to have had? But the Bush administration still hasn't said what they (supposedly) mistakenly thought Iraq had.

Saddam Hussein used poison gas and nerve agents in the Iran-Iraq war and against Kurds in Halabja circa 1984-1988. But considering the short shelf life of what he used (mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX) and having weapon inspectors crawl through his country after getting pushed out of Kuwait, no, it doesn't count as having WMDs nearly 15 years later. Why do you think the Bush administration used a vague term like WMDs instead of what they "knew" Hussein had, anyway? It's so it would match practically anything found. If Iraq was attacked because the US knew he had e.g. mustard gas, the Bush administration should have said "mustard gas" instead of WMDs.

I'd like to state that I think there are few things MORE threatening than ideas. They can easily outlive people, and often entire civilizations; they can spread quickly, and are hard to suppress because the very attempt to suppress an idea can contribute to its spread; and even if the originator of the idea changes his or her mind, they are usually unable to stop their original idea being propagated by others.

Skeptic writes: Merlyn; No one said it was dishonorable, simply biased. I was replying to Beavah's statement "The other alternative to creatin' multiple smaller outlets appealin' to various (often polarizin') constituencies, yeh teach honor and responsibility the ones that are already here," which seems to be saying that the media outlets that are already here are excluding scout stories because they lack honor and responsibility. There is far wider spectrum of families, those people to whom the paper markets itself, who are interested in scouts, and other youth oriented organizations. So should they not be equally covered? Oh, but that might get me critism from the PC police, so I will simply overlook their activities unless they are handed to me already written; and then I will publish them weeks after the event and bury them in a back section somewhere. Maybe newspapers prefer not to write fluff pieces about discriminatory organizations.

What's dishonorable or irresponsible about not printing stories about scouts?

Hey, to paraphrase something gays and atheists always hear in re: the Boy Scouts -- if your local paper excludes scout articles, just start your own newspaper.

Beavah, you have yet to point out what, if anything, you object to if everyone can put their own monuments up in a public park. You keep pointing to one example where one person was granted permission to put up a display, as if that gives him a blank check to erect anything he likes in a public park. But do you have any objections to everyone having the same opportunity to put up their own objects? As for the course "Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," it was cancelled in December 2005 before it was scheduled to begin.

Beavah, if everyone can put up their own displays in a public park, the god-rock is fine. However, I don't know of any public parks that allow this. But that would certainly be fairness all around, wouldn't it? And I doubt you have anything to support your contention that any of the art exhibits were done solely to denegrate religious symbols. For one, the "controversial" pieces were not the only artworks in the exhibits. Of course, you can contend this even without evidence, but I'm not buying it. Plus, if you want to find university lectures about gods being myths, I'm sure I can find similar lectures about gods as actually existing. But you first -- if you only handwave, I'll wave back. If you find a lecturer brought in by a student group, I'll find one brought in by a student group.

Mapplethorpe's photos and Ofili's painting of the virgin mary are again examples that were NOT created using public money, but only exhibited at galleries that (like a lot of galleries) get some public funding.

What makes it "bad art"? Have you even seen it?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is home to National 4-H Headquarters and the 4-H Youth Development Program, prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or family status. As a result, 4-H programs must have secular purposes focused on education and must not advance religion. Promoting religion, or explicitly or implicitly requiring religion or practices that specifically support one denomination, such as Christianity, as a condition for participation in 4-H club meetings or activities not only has religious purpose, it has the obvious effect of promoting one religion over others and can create a barrier for participation among other groups. If 4-H activities and programs included prescribed religious prayers, scriptures, or religious components to club bylaws, activities, or names, it would inject impermissible sectarian overtones. Such violations could create the impression that 4-H is not open to participation by all.

Serrano IS Catholic; many of his photographs use religious imagery and/or human body fluids. And tax dollars weren't used to make Piss Christ, though it has been on exhibit in US art museums, many of which get some funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Was someone saying that someone was discriminated against? There's nothing in this thread saying that someone was discriminated against.

I wouldn't. http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/library/fs-certification_4-H_groups_v9-07.pdf The fine print (and it really is the fine print) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W , Whitten Building. 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. I'm willing to be religion applies to all programs. Also this part: 1. All included subsidiary groups must be formally authorized groups within your state and under the control of Cooperative Extension. All included subsidiary groups must have names that: ... Are not overtly religious or represent the beliefs of one denomination over another; Do not imply that membership is limited or exclusive; and Are not offensive or generally seen as demeaning to any group protected byequal opportunity regulations(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

I object to being edited in an ungrammatical fashion. Changing "you guys have a problem..." into "y'all have a problem..." is just declasse' edited just for mischievous reasons :-) acco40 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

So Gold Winger, you guy have a problem with a national youth organization telling one of its units to conform to national standards? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)