Merlyn_LeRoy

BrentAllen lies: You are going to argue that McGreevey wanted to be MARRIED so badly, that he was willing to marry a woman, even though he didn't love her. No, I didn't say that at all; in fact, I pointed out that people "defending" marriage by denying it to gays (and pointing out that "gays can still get married") are encouraging sham marriages. packsaddle, Douglas Smith posed no risk whatsoever to the boys in Scouting, in his administrative position. Are you arguing he should have been allowed to remain in Scouting? He collected and redistributed child pornography; I (and I assume packsaddle) have no problem with kicking him out for that. Or would it be OK with you if he stayed on if only girls were in the pictures? Now, why was Dennis St. Jean kicked out (by Douglas Smith, no less)? He was general manager of Sea Base in Florida for the BSA. Are you arguing that he should not be allowed to remain in scouting?

I wonder if Dina McGreevey, wife of James McGreevey, considers herself a victim of homosexuality? I wonder if she considers herself a victim of no-gay-marriage; after all, if James McGreevey could have married a man in a society that accepts gay marriage, he wouldn't have entered into a sham marriage with her, something that quite a few "defenders of marriage" seem to think is just fine (whenever they point out that gays CAN get married, as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex).

In reading the article, it sounds like the real problem is the Bob Jones decision.

I just found it ironic that Ed seemed to be arguing in favor of allowing those godless, liberal, secular school administrators, to have the right to arbitrarily deny a Christian group access to the distribution of school fliers. There's a similar irony about the law itself; it was co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to make sure that Christian students could form religious student groups, but when students began to demand the right to form gay-straight alliances, he's suddenly against his own law: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_psgr2.htm When asked about the selective bias against the gay club and in favor of Bible study groups, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that when the Equal Access Act was approved, it wasn't for "those sorts of groups."

I certainly know about equal access laws, and I also agree with them. If school officials were able to arbitrarily veto groups they don't agree with, atheist groups would typically be refused while many theist groups (like the BSA) would be OK'd.

Beavah writes: The question is whether the Government should maintain that nobody who publicly professes a belief in God should be eligible for government funds (Medicare, Medicaid, using the field at the Army base, going to school, etc.). I haven't seen anybody advocating this, and it's clearly grossly unconstitutional. What are you referring to?

Ed, if you knew why we were discussing hospitals, why did you make the painfully obvious and totally irrelevant remark that the BSA isn't a hospital? I'm not a hospital either.

Yes Ed, everyone knows this. Do you know why we were discussing hospitals?

Nobody seems to mind Medicare and Medicaid funding the Christian hospitals that provide care to millions of people either. Now ask yourself if these hospitals could refuse to serve, say, Jews or atheists, and continue to get funding, and whether they ought to continue to get funding.

stlscouter writes: Merlyn As I recall the Scouting For All folks issued a cease and desist order against a group that was using SFA.com Imagine a group that does no scouting program telling someone else not to use the scouting word. Oh yes, some group tried to deceive people by using www.scoutingforall.com about six years ago. That domain name is now owned by Scouting For All. But, at least you have the cetifiable 1,000,000 signatures on the petition. Funny, the SFA website only talks about 111,898 signatures, and like most petitions, asks signers for name, address, etc. Who audits that number? Who claims it's audited? Are you claiming it's audited? Are you claiming that SFA says it's audited? Any crinimals or child molesters in the group or don't you take the time to check that out? Are you saying criminals and child molesters can't sign petitions? I understand the Scouting For All group was at the march on public property in Washington DC, anybody pay fair market value for that priveledge? What country do you live in? In my country, protesting on public property is a right, not a privilege. Like in the neighborhood of at least $1 like Balboa Park or $3 milliomn in improvements to A. P. Hill? Oh, I see. You aren't really interested in any of that, you just want to whine about the BSA losing special privileges, so you try to ignore the constitution and say that public protesting is some kind of "privilege" (that the government could take away, like any other privilege). No citizenship merit badge for you. And while we're at it w2hy does the Scouting For All folks like you lie when you know that you are not for ALL but just the godless and homosexuals? Well, now you're lying. SFA does not advocate that only atheists and gays be elligible for membership; that would be kind of dumb, as many SFA members (including Scott and Steven Cozza, David Rice, etc) are neither atheists nor gay.

Hey stlscouter, I'm not aware of any lawsuits or "cease and desist" orders filed by Scouting For All; perhaps you could fill me in. And exactly what has SFA done to cause the BSA to spend "big $$$"? I also can't help noticing that the BSA is the one filing lawsuits lately, in an effort to prevent the loss of some of their special government support. So if you want to complain about expensive lawsuits, blame the BSA.

There's a current trademark battle between the BSA and YouthScouts: http://youthscouts.org/news.html Here's the US Patent and Trademark office page on it: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=91157313&qs=&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn= or http://tinyurl.com/espxq

In January 2004, the Cradle of Liberty Council held a meeting with the city solicitor and mayor's office. An agreement was made, and Boy Scout council adopted a non-discrimination policy, with language suggested by the city, which was accepted by the city and the national Boy Scouts organization. (It can be read at www.colbsa.org.) Since the 2004 meeting, no official negotiations have occurred between the council and the city solicitor's office. The council has offered to meet with the solicitor. That is why the city's eviction notice completely bewildered the Boy Scouts. The above doesn't agree with this July 7, 2004 story from the News Gleaner: http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12250679&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6 or http://tinyurl.com/n27dw ... Coviello [executive vice president of the Cradle of Liberty Council] also said that the Cradle of Liberty Council and the city still have not reached agreement concerning the use of its Center City office building, located at 22nd and Winter Streets. ...

Well Ed, if you're right, the cradle of liberty council has nothing to worry about, right?

Fred, you seem to be as ineducable as Ed. "in perpetuity" only means the lease doesn't need to be renewed. The Philly lease, according to news reports, says that the city can terminate the lease by giving the BSA one year's notice. If the lease explicitly says that it can be terminated that way, your argument boils down to ignoring part of the lease, while at the same time you're complaining that part of the lease is being ignored. Neither part is being ignored: "in perpetuity" means the lease doesn't need to be periodically renewed; an explicit clause on how to end the lease, ends the lease if it is exercised.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

For those who need to be told more than once, the judge in the Balboa Park case ruled that the Boy Scouts were a "religious organization", not a "religion", and the BSA also describes itself as a "religious organization".

Hunt writes: I do think it will be instructive to see whether the city makes similar moves against other organizations with similar leases--I think there are churches on the list, for example. I very much doubt that Philadelphia leases government buildings to churches for $1/year to be used for religious purposes, as that amounts to a public subsidy for that religion. All religious organizations that get subsidized leases would also have to follow Philadelphia's nondiscrimination requirements. Fuzzy Bear writes: Now if Scouting accepted the ruling of one judge, I can't think of the case, that Scouting is in fact a religion, This never happened, but a number of websites that aren't too particular about getting the details of court decisions right reported it that way. Judge Jones ruled in the Balboa Park case that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization - in part, because the Boy Scouts said they were a religious organization.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Or sort of like meeting the requirements to rent public property for $1/year. Either you follow the rules or you don't reap the benefits a nondiscriminatory organization gets.

Ed, you're the one saying all discrimination is the same, not me. Hunt, I think a lawsuit could easily succeed against the BSA, as they clearly knew or should have known that they were inducing a public school into practicing religious discrimination. In Minnesota, that's a crime.

BrentAllen writes: If an atheist boy wanted to join our Pack last year, chartered by & meeting at our school, he would have been turned down. If an atheist boy wanted to join our Pack now, which still meets at the school, he will be turned down. Nothing has changed. Nope - in the first case, you'd be subject to a lawsuit, and lose. That's quite a difference. You keep ignoring that, and that's the main reason the BSA agreed to move all their charters. Ed, if all discrimination is the same, then public schools, which have separate bathrooms for boys & girls, could also have separate bathrooms for white and non-white students. All discrimination is the same in your view, right?

No Hunt, you really don't understand. There are examples of e.g. the ACLU suing to get a 10 commandments off a courthouse lawn, and a church across the street agrees to have it on their lawn instead. Now, you might say that nothing has changed, since the 10 commandments monument is just on the other side of the street, but you're completely ignoring the difference between the government doing it vs. a private organization doing it, and why that difference is important.

Ed, I've pointed out your equivocation on the term "discrimination" for some time now, and no, not all discrimination is the same. And when a public school charters a BSA unit, the school is supposedly agreeing to enforce the BSA's religious requirements, which a public school can't do.

Ed, I've answered your same questions before, and you simply can't learn things. Public schools can't discriminate on the basis of religion. Public schools CAN discriminate in other ways.

stlscouter, you may not have noticed, but the only lawsuit filed in this particular case is from the Boy Scouts, trying once again to have their cake and eat it too, by insisting the city has to give them free rent. And no, a government agency running a "no atheists allowed" youth group isn't just a "perceived" violation. In your own St. Louis area, the St. Louis special school district had to drop an in-school scouting program because of the BSA's discrimination.

Ed writes: A Scout unit in a public school is the school's youth group. No Ed, learn to read for comprehension. A scout unit CHARTERED by a public school is the school's youth group. That's what the BSA says: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-507.html Never heard that one before. I wonder if public schools consider BSA units their youth group? Kinda doubt it. Ed, if a BSA unit chartered to a public school isn't the school's youth group, whose is it? No court has ever ruled that a public school chartering a BSA unit was unconstitutional. Ed, I'd like to see a court case, but whenever one even gets remotely close, the school doesn't even try to defend it. You need to find a public school reckless enough to try and defend practicing religious discrimination. The BSA won't even try to defend this; as you'll recall, they agreed to stop issuing charters to public schools and other government entities.