Merlyn_LeRoy

This particular series of incidents show how the Grand Teton council *knew* about child abuse, and instead of stopping it, covered it up. They tried to keep the court records hushed up. And currently, one of the principle people involved in covering up child abuse in Idaho is now the CEO of the Chief Seattle council. Don't you think that ought to be changed? Or are people who cover up for child molesters OK as council execs?

More information about the sexual abuse that the Teton council covered up; according to this story, denials from a "local Mormon church leader" and a denial from the accused (who is also the son of a member of the BSA council) is sufficient for Brad Allen (then, director in the Grand Teton council) to dismiss allegations of molestation, and good enough for the National BSA to put his name on the list of recommendations for CEO of the Chief Seattle council. (For background, here's the Post-Register's series on the Grand Teton council: http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/part1.php ) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003849264_boyscoutside23m.html As chief executive officer for the state's largest Boy Scouts of America council, Brad Allen is the Puget Sound region's main enforcer of the organization's zero-tolerance policy on sex abuse. But years before he was hired in 2006 to head the Chief Seattle Council in Seattle, Allen was at the center of a sex-abuse scandal in Idaho involving a serial molester named Bradley Stowell, a Scout-camp swimming instructor who has admitted molesting as many as two dozen boys. The case has resulted in a series of lawsuits that have cost the Boy Scouts hundreds of thousands of dollars, and prompted changes in Idaho law. It has become a cause clbre in Idaho for critics who accuse the Boy Scouts of failing to police sexual abusers in their ranks. The Chief Seattle Council's board of directors said it has complete confidence in Allen's leadership, though its president conceded he was unaware when they hired him that Allen was involved in lawsuits over the Idaho case. Allen has repeatedly declined interview requests. Paul Steed, the father of two of the molested Idaho boys, says the case makes Allen unfit to lead a council with 47,500 youth members in King County and four other counties around Puget Sound about half of all the Boy Scouts in Washington. "He had the prime chance to catch Stowell one-third of the way into his career abusing boys," said Steed, of Pocatello, Idaho. "What absolute shortsightedness to put Stowell in charge of the waterfront." Allen, a 53-year-old Utah native, is an Eagle Scout, as are all six of his sons. He has spent all but one year of his professional life working for the Boy Scouts. Before moving to Seattle, Allen, who is Mormon, spent six years as the national Boy Scouts' chief liaison to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest sponsor of Scout troops in the U.S. Criticism of Allen has focused on his response to a tip he received in 1995, when he was director of a Scout council in eastern Idaho, that Stowell had molested a 6-year-old boy seven years earlier. The Boy Scouts' operating manual at the time called for Allen to immediately remove Stowell from the camp, add his name to a national file of ineligible volunteers and call the police if he found the allegation credible. In what he later described as a "judgment call" in testimony for a lawsuit, Allen didn't check with police, child-welfare officials or the tipster himself. Instead, he accepted the word of a local Mormon church leader, who vouched for Stowell's fitness for the Boy Scouts. Allen also relied on Stowell himself, whose mother was on the board of the local Boy Scout council: "I told him there was no problem," Stowell testified years later. "It was an isolated incident and that I was over that." Stowell had never been charged with molesting the 6-year-old. He had cut a deal with Idaho child-welfare authorities to get counseling and write the boy an apology, according to court records. Allen let Stowell keep his job on the waterfront of Camp Little Lemhi, and told a fellow Scout official that there was "no basis to the allegations," according to sworn testimony. Stowell then molested at least four more young Scouts before his arrest in 1997. Now serving 14 years in prison, he has admitted to at least 24 victims in all. The Boy Scouts have settled three lawsuits by Stowell victims all with confidential terms. A fourth suit, by Paul Steed's sons, is pending. During one of the suits, a judge in Idaho singled out Allen's "cursory investigation" as "reckless." The judge said a "cultural atmosphere of ignorance and naivet exists to such an extent that the very purposes of the organization are ignored for personal reasons, resulting in circumstances where youths who should be protected are preyed upon." Del Bishop, president of the Chief Seattle Council board of directors, said they chose Allen from a short list provided by the national Boy Scout office. In a statement, Bishop said Allen "has devoted his life to Scouting and to serving youth and families." But Patrick Boyle, the author of "Scout's Honor," about sex abuse in Scouting, notes that "in the Stowell case, you had a Scout executive in the 1990s doing what the [boy Scouts] said it wasn't doing anymore: doing a superficial investigation and concluding on his own there's nothing to it." "This guy [Allen] appears to do exactly what BSA said was not happening anymore," he said. ------------- There's another story on how the BSA is secretive about abuse it knows about: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/state/story/9245157p-9160470c.html

It isn't a Muslim school, Ed.

uz2bnowl, you aren't making any sense. The ACLU gets involved if and when: 1) they know about some incident 2) the incident appears to violate someone's civil rights 3) the ACLU has enough resources (money, lawyers, etc) to allocate some to the incident 4) the incident appears to be "winnable" in some way If they don't know about a particular incident, they obviously can't do anything about it. If they know about it, but in their opinion no rights have been violated, they probably won't do anything. If they don't have the resources, they might want to do something, but simply can't. And in some cases they may think a case too difficult to win. Many of your bizarre questions involved no civil rights violations. Some did, but you don't seem to be interested in any real discussion, you just want to try and trash the ACLU. If the BSA only uses its own money, they will, by and large, avoid lawsuits. They will not avoid criticism.

It's all for naught.

If they teach religion or have prayer time, the ACLU will get involved. But right now it's just rightwing hot air.

What do you mean "Christian" school, Ed? How could it be that and also follow Department of Education regulations and the same curriculum as any other school? Are you claiming that Khalil Gibran International Academy will be teaching a religion?

How is a school that follows Department of Education regulations and the same curriculum as any other school a violation, Ed?

...and I know you never associate yourself with the ACLU Ed, so what am I to conclude from your premises?

Well Ed, I hope you're consistent and you ridicule people who convert due to reading e.g. C.S. Lewis' fiction.

Yes Ed. Good books make people think, and sometimes lead to unexpected results.

Ed, you're one for distorting facts too; "In an interview last year, he said he lost faith in Christianity, what he calls the "supernatural," after reading 1984 in high school." That does not say he "based his beliefs on it."

Daniel Pipes is the one who started this "stop the madrassa" ball rolling, and he's got a history of grossly distorting facts. Remember a few years ago when people (including Pipes) were screaming about the Byron Union School District having students roleplaying Muslims, saying Muslim prayers, learning the five pillars of Islam, etc? That actually went to court, and a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit looked at what was really going on, and said there was no indoctrination and no first amendment violation. What does Pipes write? "Courts: OK to Proselytize for Islam in California Schools": http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/135 He's a kook, and people like Alicia Colon and Fred Goodwin who propagate his idiocy are fools.

Yes Ed, the same accommodation as everyone else. However, you keep citing instances of equal treatment and crying that it's infringing on your rights, like your imaginary "right" to have public schools run private BSA units.

uz2bnowl writes: Because the ACLU would NOT want to look prejudice in the eyes of the nation. It's always been ok to trash Christianity, remember the artist that threw elephant poop at Mary's picture? No, but I remember when Roman Catholic artist Chris Ofili used elephant dung in his work "The Holy Virgin Mary," as he has used elephant dung in nearly all his works since he staying in Zimbabwe for six weeks, but on what possible basis could the ACLU object? Something made by an artist using his own money, and the ACLU is supposed to do what, exactly? The first amendment protects that. Crucifix in the clear beaker of urine? Same questions for Serrano's "Piss Christ"; what has that got to do with the ACLU? That's all "art". "Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know." -- Groucho Marx in Animal Crackers. A moment of silence in school is offensive. Saying Merry Christmas is offensive. OK, now you're just babbling. Are you trying to imply that these are official ACLU positions, or are you just stringing phrases together in the hope it will magically form an argument? A foot washing station is o.k. because it is diverse and multi-cultural. That's not what the ACLU said, but since you obviously aren't interested in real information, why bother? Hey, Merlyn who died and made you the person who decides what's relative? Nobody. I have my opinions are argue them forcefully, and I actually look up information instead of making up crap. This can be a very effective way to 1) argue, and 2) accomplish things. You might want to try it sometime. There's more garbage on the politics area of this site than one can imagine. You're certainly holding your own in that department. You're not tolerant of Christians Sorry, now you're lying. For one thing, I've been married to a Christian for 19 years now. For another, I consistently argue for equal treatment of people regardless of religion. or this article yet you want us to accomodate you and your views. No, I DEMAND accomodation and equal treatment, and I've stated before that I would defend that up to and including deadly force if I thought it was necessary. You want to change the views of 4 million Scouts and get rid of the DRP. I'd hardly have to change the views of all 4 million scouts because a fair number of them think the BSA's religious discrimination is pointless and idiotic.

Fred, I haven't seen you HAVE a discussion about church/state issues; you're mostly just post-and-run. Now you're just parroting extreme right-wing claptrap.

Fred, what does this have to do with scouting?

There doesn't appear to be a ruling as yet; news stories from a week ago estimated that there would be a ruling in about a month.

Ed, since your "opinion" on what I want to do contradicts what I've clearly stated, you are lying. And since your "opinion" contradicts what I've clearly stated, you are implying that those statements of mine are lies.

Ed writes: A nativity display on the courthouse lawn is not endorsing any religion. Sure it is, Ed. Not all religions center on your god. Didn't lie Merlyn. I don't lie. Yes, you do lie Ed. Here's a statement you made that is a lie: "After all, both want nothing more than the removal of God from everything at any cost!" That's a lie. My statement is my opinion of your methods. No Ed, the above statement is a lie, not an opinion. You are lying about what I want, and your statement is contrary to what I've publically said in this forum. In other words, you're lying about my position. Now, other statements you've made in this thread ARE opinion, and I didn't call you a liar over them; but above, you are deliberately lying about what my position actually is, and I will call you a liar when you do that. By the way Ed, how would you suggest I get by without using currency? I'm not hypocritical, I support Newdow's (and others) efforts to remove these inappropriate statements from US currency. You would probably whine about how that would "infringe" on your "rights" to worship. Hey OGE, I'd still like to know how your example "atheist" message is atheistic. I could probably find a number of posts by you in scouter.com that don't mention gods in any way -- does that mean you're promoting atheism in those posts? I'll argue with you instead of Ed, but you aren't even keeping up your end.

Ed writes: When in doubt, resort to name calling. Like "terrorist tactics"; I didn't call you a name, I stated quite accurately that you were lying. That isn't namecalling. If Merlyn was for religious freedom, he would have no problem with nativity display beside a Christmas tree on the courthouse lawn. Sorry Ed, you don't get to define for me what "religious freedom" means. In my book, it does not include having the government promote religions. But that isn't what you were lying about, because what "religious freedom" means is a matter of opinion. You lied when you said I "want nothing more than removal of God from everything at any cost" Churches, for just one example, can have their gods plastered all over them, and I have no problem with that. What about the rights of those who want the nativity display? Fine, put one up on your own property. I'll put up what displays I want on my property. Equal rights are so predictable. I'm surprised you use American currency, Merlyn! It's kinda hypocritical since the words "In God We Trust" is on it! It's hypocritical of the government to assert it's meaningless, yes. I can hardly avoid using it, though I can cross it off paper money. Does the Freemason imagery on dollar bills bother you, Ed? You seem to be the kooky paranoid type that thinks the freemasons run everything.

Ed lies: After all, both want nothing more than the removal of God from everything at any cost! Stop lying, Ed. And you're still frothing at the mouth.

OGE writes: I was trying to explain how not mentioning God implies an endorsement of Atheism Oh, well I disagree. See my earlier questions on whether teaching 2+2=4 is teaching atheism if gods are not mentioned. is it ok for their Hindu teacher to tell him, "Praise Vishnu you did well?" etc Of course not. The only proper one is your misnamed "atheist" one, "Hey Bobby, you did well", but that's not atheistic. If the teacher pointed out that Billy (who did poorly) prayed and it didn't help him, that could be characterized as atheistic, and would also be inappropriate. Are not all a method of congratulating the student, while also advocating a religious point of view? What religious POV is your atheist advocating by saying "Hey Bobby, you did well"? Are all teachers that use such phrases atheists in your view?

Ed, complaints are usually the first proper channel if a parent has an issue about a teacher wearing a shirt that promotes religion (or atheism, for that matter). Oh, Croft is overreacting, but your description that he's using "terrorist tactics" by going through proper channels isn't? You've been frothing at the mouth throughout this whole thread. Try posting without using exclamation points, they only bring out your wingnuttery.

No. If you want to debate, debate here. True, "tone" is missing, but having every line of an argument written down is helpful in other ways. For example, you keep saying you're surprised by my position, as if it's changed. Yet you haven't posted anything I've said that would suggest I'm against religious freedom, so I have no idea what you're referring to. My position on religious freedom hasn't changed appreciably during the six years I've been posting to scouter.com. Here, you can QUOTE everything I've ever written, to identify what you see in my position as in conflict with religious freedom.