Merlyn_LeRoy

But the government doesn''t do that Ed. If you disagree, please give a specific example of what you consider free exercise that the government prohibits.

Many people also seem to think that "free exercise" means that public officials get to use their powers of office to promote their religious views, or that government entities have first amendment rights.

"Right to a fair trial" and "separation of powers" are more phrases not found in the constitution, but they are commonly referred to, even in court decisions. Judges know that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the constitution, but they also know that the first amendment is not limited to forbidding a national church. If it was meant to only prohibit the formation of a national church, it would have said that. It doesn''t.

Lawsuits don''t create any laws, they force the courts to rule exactly how existing laws apply to a particular case. And I''ve brought this up this before -- what lawsuits have been filed against the BSA since Dale? Most of the lawsuits I''m aware of are either against a state agency and do not involve the BSA as a party, or they were instigated BY the BSA. So exactly which lawsuits are people complaining about?

I''ve always thought following the law was also a "good thing," and lawsuits are used to establish that. And competition is healthy only on a level playing field, not where one organization gets special rights.

Well Hunt, I come to a very different conclusion looking at the actual history of BSA and LFL. First, do you realize that when LFL first started, even though it was started as a school-run program, the BSA tried to insist that leadership had to follow the same standards as the BSA and exclude gays and atheists? Also, what is the distinction between a Venture Crew saferides program and an Explorer saferides program, other than the obvious, and obviously unneeded, discrimination? BSA discrimination has never been coherent. Explorer Posts stop discriminating at the stroke of a pen in 1998, with no discernable change (except, of course, now gays and atheists are included). Packs and Troops, and in some cases entire councils, ignore the policy and include gays and atheists as long as National does not find out. The BSA charters discriminatory units to public schools. All of these show that the BSA''s discrimination is arbitrary.

I would say they do not differ at all, with the further observation that ALL religions are devoid of (supernatural or spiritual) knowledge. I am not sure, but it looks like you are objecting to agnostics following some religion that they agree is not based on knowledge of the supernatural, as opposed to people who follow a religion that they believe IS based (rightly or wrongly) on knowledge of the supernatural. There are some people who do not care if their religion is made up; Jedi appears to be turning into a real religion. (I would like to point out that I am typing in a style reiminiscient of Data on Star Trek: TNG, not because Star Trek is a religion, but because I am avoiding the use of apostrophies).

GaHillBilly writes: In the absence of knowledge, how is a "cohesive set of beliefs" different than a Dungeons and Dragons set? How is this different from any other religion?

eisely writes: If a boy came to join up who had been transgendered I would have no difficulty signing him up. Legally he is a boy and wants to be a boy. The legal sex of someone who has gone through transgender surgery varies by state. Some recognize the person''s new sex, some don''t. It should come as no surprise that Texas is totally screwed up when it comes to this issue. A male-to-female TG can marry a man in Houston or a woman in San Antonio, but not vice-versa, because these cities differ on whether they go by birth certificate or current gender. PS: my guess about the double quotes is a side-effect of changes to prevent javascript phishing in e.g. subject lines

fgoodwin writes: Oddly enough, under the new paradigm of "tolerance", groups with some type of exclusivity like AHG and BSA are *not* to be tolerated! Well, whites-only groups and Restricted clubs aren't exactly tolerated nowadays either; however I''d be satisfied if groups like AHG and BSA would be up front about who is and is not allowed. The BSA never seems to tell public schools under what circumstances they are expected to practice religious discrimination, as the recent SafeRides incident at John Jay High School shows, and it still takes some digging on AHG's website to learn they are exclusively Christian. They also claim to be a "scouting" organization. [apostrophies are now coming out as double quotes; my guess is that is connected to a fix to prevent javascript phishing](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Congressman Jefferson was indicted by a grand jury on 16 counts on June 4, 2007, so he's not exactly out of the woods. The money was found in a search of his house, not his office. It doesn't look like the investigation relies on anything from his office.

To add a new wrinkle, since Craig was traveling to DC to vote on a bill, his arrest was unconstitutional. It's likely the entire case will be thrown out.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

At least the city got a new slogan out of it: "What happens in Minneapolis, stays in Minneapolis papers for weeks"

Beavah writes: Now, it's an interestin' question whether organizations should be forced to create "secular branches" in order to prevent being excluded from the public forum. Seems like state suppression of ideas to me. A "public forum" is where people can voice their opinions. Nobody is being excluded from those. The BSA has been trying (and failing) to say that getting money from the government, or getting a subsidy from the government, is, somehow, a "public forum", and excluding them is a violation of the first amendment. I don't know of any court that has agreed with their tortured logic.

I gave an URL for all of the police reports yesterday. Read 'em.

I disagree that COs know "up front" the expectations of the BSA, when public schools used to be the #1 CO, and John Jay High School used Venturing for its SafeRides program. When the SafeRides issue first came up, the school superintendent asked the BSA if the religious requirement could be waived so an atheist student could join, so it doesn't sound like he knew that the BSA expected to exclude atheists from the school's SafeRides program.

When the BSA deliberately conflates between members & "participants" to deceive people it's an issue, Ed. Here's the BSA's press release from 2000 about their 100 millionth member: http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2000/000404/index.html Notice that the PR is about their 100 millionth "member", yet their figure of 4.9 million youth must include LFL totals, since in 1999 they only had 3.4 million members and 1.6 million in LFL. Yet the press release suggests the BSA fosters "duty to god" among ALL of these 4.9 million youth, since they don't bother to distinguish between members and participants. I can't even tell if the BSA counted LFL members in reaching their 100 millionth member or not.

This is another area where the BSA uses deliberately confusing terms so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths at once. For example, only the traditional programs have "members"; LFL only has "participants". You will sometimes see BSA press releases talking about members & participants in the same sentence -- "participants" to give them a largest total of youth served by including LFL, then switch to "members" when they try to defend their discriminatory policies. They'll even imply that all of the youth they serve (which includes LFL, and includes gays & atheists) support their "traditional membership standards" of excluding gays & atheists. For more wordplay, see various council's "nondiscrimination" policies that vow never to engage in "illegal discrimination".

And I'm glad to see gods aren't.

It only took them a few months to do the obvious: http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/lewisboro/22091.shtml The Boy Scout program, which has been financed by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District for the past 23 years, was put on hiatus at the end of last school year, after a parent complained that members, who are John Jay High School students, were required to sign a nondenominational "declaration of religious principles" acknowledging the existence of God. But according to interim Superintendent of Schools Dr. Robert Roelle, the school district has reached an agreement with the Boy Scouts of America to run the program without the religious declaration. "We're pretty happy that we were able to work together," said Marc Andreo, executive of the Westchester-Putnam Council of the Boy Scouts. "After the questions came up during the spring, we went ahead and gave them the opportunity to transfer their charter to the Explorer program ... it really was a natural fit." Previously, the program had been run through the Venturers, a co-educational branch of the Boy Scouts. In order to be covered under the Venturer insurance policy, SafeRides volunteers needed to be members of the Venturers, and the Boy Scouts required that all members sign the declaration. ... More at the link, which is mostly background info that has already been discussed.

LongHaul writes: Merlyn, so it's against the law to move your hand under the partition between stalls in the mens room? I was asking YOU how Craig could have done "exactly the same things in the airport lounge". He couldn't have. There aren't stalls in the airport lounge. Your hypothetical question doesn't even make sense, since he couldn't have done in the lounge what he did in the men's room. Running your hand under a men's room stall isn't illegal per se, just as having 5 containers of gasoline in your car isn't illegal per se. But doing the former in conjunction with staring at the same man through the door crack for two minutes can be cited as part of someone's lewd behavior, just as charges of arson can cite all the gas cans in your car in the latter case. The Smoking Gun has all the police reports: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

How could Craig: 1) look into an occupied stall 2) move his hand under the stall divider ...in an airport lounge? The Mpls/St. Paul airport doesn't have stalls out in the lounge.

skeptic writes: Double speak is a wonderful skill, but it still does not answer the simple question. Of course I realize that you will never actually face the fact that you speak out of both sides of your mouth; it just depends on whether or not it something you want to push. Just seeing if you actually have enough spine to try and claim that gay men are child molesters, even though that's a lie. It isn't useful to use stereotypes; I prefer real life. Sorry, it is a bit cruel of me, especially since I suggested that others quit baiting you. No more on this from me. Yes, because you obviously don't care that the BSA continues to endanger scouts by putting grossly incompetent people in charge, even after they've demonstrated their incompetence. Ed writes: The serial rapist was caught. He should have been caught at least as far back as when Brad Allen was informed; thanks to his non-action, MORE scouts were molested. And now he's CEO of the Chief Seattle council because the national BSA recommended him. The whole thing was covered-up & now the cover is off. And the BSA fought attempts to expose it: http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/part2.php ... Court records, which the Boy Scouts' lawyers fought to hide from public view, show the warnings might have been sufficient to disqualify Stowell from Scouting six years before he was finally arrested. ... Look, forget the 3Gs for a second, and just look at what some BSA execs have done (and in many cases failed to do) regarding this whole mess. Execs who waived off charges of molestation (which turned out to be true) are actually recommended by BSA national to head another council; the BSA tries harder to stop public exposure of molestation in the BSA than the molestation itself.

skeptic writes: There is no doubt that there has been poor decisions made in this Idaho situation, assuming the details given are moderately accurate. But, it appears that at least some afterthought has focussed on this not happening again, if possible. I don't see that at all; the Grand Teton council, the Chief Seattle council, and the national BSA itself don't appear to be at all concerned about Brad Allen as the CEO of the Chief Seattle council, even though his "investigation" of allegations of abuse seem to have been almost nonexistent. Personally, I would hope that perhaps National might consider keeping a very close eye on the Seatle area professional oversight; but hopefully the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be much more vigilent and err on the side of caution and youth protection. Why did the national BSA put Brad Allen's name on the short list of nominees? "Erring on the side of caution" to me would include NOT putting people who have demonstrated incompetence when it comes to child abuse in charge. Of course, what sort of confuses me here is that this seems to be something Merlyn finds indicative of BSA being generally negligent. Yet, all the reports indicate that, though slower than probably should have occurred, the procedures did work; and the consensus appears to come down on the side of BSA as still having one of the best protection programs possible for such a large organization. You have a strange definition of "work" when someone like Allen not only keeps his job, but gets recommended by BSA national. What do you want Merlyn? Do you want BSA to filter out as many suspicious leader applicants as possible or only those that meet PC definitions? First, don't reward incompetence. Brad Allen COULD have cut short Bradley Stowell's abuse of scouts, BUT HE DIDN'T. This individual had a propensity toward abuse, but had been deemed to have grown out of it and was not a threat. "Deemed" not by professionals who know something about child abusers, but by Bradley Stowell's Bishop and Bradley Stowell's mother, two people who have a strong psychological motive not to believe that Stowell was an abuser. Obviously, that determination was inaccurate. Not inaccurate, incompetent. There was no credible reason to think Stowell was no longer a threat. Yet, you would have other individuals with possibly dangerous inclinations be allowed as leaders. Should not the erring on the side of safety extend to this as well? Yes, I would allow black men as leaders, even though they are part of a demographic that is higher than average for violent crime. Or were you not referring to the "dangerous inclinations" of black men? Italians? Jews? Time to play name that stereotype.

Ed, why is reporting about a sitting BSA exec covering up child abuse due to a "slow news day"? I suppose you don't consider this a problem.