Merlyn_LeRoy

You can find out about American Atheists from their website at www.atheists.org -- google not working for you today? By the way, this particular arrangement looks legal to me, as it was available to all property owners in the areas covered on the same terms.

Hunt, I am mostly concerned with removing any government support of the BSA's discrimination, but I don't exclusively post in that vein; this was an example of the BSA being used as a well-known example of an antigay organization, hardly good PR for a youth group. And you still seem peeved at me for properly calling you a liar a couple of years ago, if we're now commenting on each other's motives for posting.

Ed, I posted the "whole story". You just didn't like it.

I left out what was irrelevant. I provided a link to the original article. Your "objections" are pointless.

Ed, you still have no idea why I posted, so your bizarre "reasons" you make up for me are way off. You're counterclaims amount to "but the Boy Scouts aren't the only bigots!" Big whoop, indeed.

Ed writes, for some unknown reason: And the Little League isn't depicted that way????? Who said the LL isn't depicted that way? I certainly didn't; I even said that they were depicted as breaking the law in the movie. Who beside you see the Boy Scout as bigots? Names, please. Wendy Kaminer, Gery Armsby, Austin Cline, Matt Coles, and that's just looking at the first few matches for '"Boy Scouts" bigots' out of 46,500 matches. If this is such an important part of the movie, why did no one else but a pro-gay article pick up on it? Because the movie isn't out yet, Ed. How's that post on the Little League forum coming, Merlyn? You mean the red herring forum?

Ed writes: Silly me! I forgot how hard it is for Merlyn to follow things! The movie isn't political! Never said it was! How hard it is for ME to follow things? Ed, re-read what I wrote: "At first you said it wasn't political" Does that look like I said you said it was political? No. Yes, you're saying the review is "biased" in some unspecified way. If the movie isn't political at all, what is there for the review to be biased about? Oh well, I just thought it was worth commenting on that the Boy Scouts are now being depicted as anti-gay bigots in a mainstream movie, and that's pretty typical of how a lot of people see the Boy Scouts now. I understand why you would try to throw red herrings at my post by ridiculously accusing me of not violating copyright and posting the entire review here (instead of just referring to the Boy Scout-related content and including a link to the story, so anyone who can click a link can read it), but you're just grasping at straws, as usual. You can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

Ed, what's with the backpedalling? At first you said it wasn't political, even though the entire review was about how movies (even comedies) can be political, and now you're backpedalling and talking about how it must be biased. Wow, if it's biased, then it must be political, contrary to your earlier assertion, eh? At least you admit that the BSA discriminates (legally, of course; I know I have to add that or you'll harp on it like it somehow proves your point, whatever that's supposed to be).

Ed, if you had actually read the article I linked to, the entire article is how this movie (and many previous movies) are filled with political messages. You can't even see them when they're pointed out to you. But that's nothing new.

Ed writes: It's a comedy movie. No political statement is being made. Comedies can't have political statements? Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" had no political statement? "Dr. Strangelove" had no political statement? I think just mentioning that in the movie the irrelevant depiction of the Boy Scouts not wanting gay leaders & not mentioning the other irrelevant people & groups who feel the same way is nothing more than pushing ones own agenda! Ed, you don't even know what "relevant" means. This is "Issues and Politics" in a scouting forum, so a new movie that depicts the prejudice that gays face from the Boy Scouts is relevant to this forum. Little League bigotry against gays is NOT relevant to this forum. It would be relevant in a similar forum on politics & Little League, but that isn't what this particular forum is about. Your objections are beyond stupid; I notice YOU didn't mention that the filmmakers consulted with GLAAD on the movie -- why not? Your posting of half-truths makes your credibility go down the toilet, doesn't it?

acco40, I think it's telling that the Boy Scouts are now firmly associated with discrimination against gays. Ed seems to think this is part of a good reputation. Ed also seems to think that not mentioning irrelevant parts of a movie is somehow dishonest (while having public schools practice religious discrimination is just fine).(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, nothing else in the movie was relevant to scouting. That's why I only talked about the part that was only relevant to scouting.

Ed, do you realize that this is a MOVIE, and that it depicts a fictional story? But in the context of the story, Adam Sandler's character is discriminated against because he's pretending to be gay. In the case of Little League, it really is illegal for LL to discriminate against someone for being gay; that's not the movie, that's real life. And breaking the law in real life can have real consequences, like lawsuits. Now, it's true that I neglected to post a synopsis of an entire movie I haven't seen, but for some reason you seem to think that's relevant. I don't. I was only pointing out that the only mention of the Boy Scouts in an upcoming movie is an unfavorable one highlighting their institutionalized bigotry against gays. You objection amounts to "Hey, OTHER people are bigoted against gays too!" as if that's some justification. It isn't.

Yes Ed, all examples of bigoted prejudice against gay people. Is there some reason you think you're in good company? And by the way, Little League was declared a public accomodation years ago, and since the story is set in New York City, any Little League that did this would be in violation of New York's civil rights laws.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Reportedly, after Adam Sandler pretends to be gay to enter into a domestic partnership to help out a buddy, he's no longer welcome in the Boy Scouts: http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/7/chuckandlarry

I don't know of any government that claims to rule in their god's stead that's not horrific.

fgoodwin writes: This appears to be a win-win: BSA isn't forced to drop or change its principles, and atheist kids can attend their own summer camp, and not feel odd or left-out by attending a BSA camp that has the pledge, prayers. etc. that they don't agree with in the first place. Is it really that hard to setup an alternative rather than suing BSA into submission? This approach looks like the way to go, to me. Can someone explain to me why not? Sure, they can have schools pass their camp fliers out, just like the Boy Scouts. Oops, looks like when atheists try to promote camp quest, some teachers refuse to hand out their fliers: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55854 ... Some teachers in the Albemarle School District in Virginia are rebelling against their managers' orders to hand out to students as young as kindergarten a promotion for a summer camp that advocates for "Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever..." A representative of the teachers talked to WND only on condition that a name and school not be used, and said such advertisements provided by the district to hand out to children violate the teachers' religious beliefs. ... The newest brochure advertises Camp Quest. ... So everyone else gets to hand out their fliers, but not the atheists. Well, at least we can rent some campgrounds, right? Oops, when a Kentucky Baptist church didn't like the fact that public accommodation laws required them to rent their camp to Camp Quest atheists, the Kentucky legislature exempted churches from the law: http://www.edwinkagin.com/documents/bullittsburg/newspaper-articles.html ... Churches could refuse to rent their facilities to gays and lesbians, atheists and others who violate their religious beliefs, but could not bar blacks or other racial groups, under a bill the House of Representatives passed yesterday. ... And the only lawsuits I'm aware of against the BSA are not to "sue them into submission," but to insure that the BSA doesn't get special treatment at public expense. Atheists can't even get equal treatment when they're willing to pay their own way, and the BSA's (and your) attitude towards atheists don't help.

Why not? Isn't gluttony a sin?

The NAACP not only allows white members, they didn't have a black chairman of the board for the first 25 years; most of the people who started it were white. fgoodwin writes: In the context of this thread, I wonder why the "MSM" (mainstream media) aren't all over Muslim leaders about this treatment of women, especially here in America (according to the woman being interviewed, second class status is typically how Muslim women are treated, even in the US)? Where are the NOW protesters marching in front of mosques across America? Probably the same place they're protesting Orthodox Judaism's separation of sexes -- mostly it's only members of that particular religion that protest. Of course, that begs the question of why you yourself aren't protesting.

You should look around the web a bit. I've seen a lot of scouts, even eagle scouts, say they want nothing to do with the current BSA, or at least the current national leadership. Yes, there are supporters of the BSA, but when it comes to mainstream press like the aside in Newsweek, discrimination on the basis of religion and/or sexual orientation isn't popular, particularly against minors.

I think you've already stated it -- it's to castigate the BSA. Some people disapprove of what the BSA now stands for, so they criticize the BSA.

I think killing George III would have changed things fairly drastically, particularly given his mental problems. OGE, I should've worn my "Morse Science High School Athletic Dept." shirt today.

Like I pointed out earlier, Hitler was elected, so I don't see the distinction you make between Hitler and George III as far as what makes assassination OK for Hitler but not George III. Killing monarchs is so common it even has its own term, "regicide."

TheScout, your position doesn't seem consistent regarding leaders; you approved of Washington not being sniped, even though he wasn't a civilian leader, he was a major military general. And your arbitrary degree of 'totalitarianness' that makes it OK to assassinate an opposing leader doesn't make sense either -- Franklin certainly felt that George III would have hanged the revolutionaries if they had lost. Why is it unfair to try to kill someone who would kill you, given the chance?

I hope you are not comparing Hitler and King George III You're the one who said one was OK to assassinate, and one not. Why the difference? This thread started when I said it would be inappropriate to assasinate Supreme Court justices and then I added civilian leaders. I do not think I ever said it was wrong to shoot military officers on the field of battle. So does it become OK to shoot civilian leaders if they meet with generals in a war zone?