Merlyn_LeRoy

Fred, I've pointed out to you before that "in perpetuity" in a lease only means that the lease doesn't need to be periodically renewed. Every such lease has ways to end it, and the Philly lease can be ended if the city gives the Boy Scouts one-year's notice. Maybe the city gave them the lease because they believed and trusted that the Boy Scouts were for "all boys" or something.

BrentAllen writes: Because, again, it wasn't an issue! No one asked us to change our charter! And as soon as you rejected an atheist kid, or a kid from an atheist family, you would have found out quite quickly how much of an issue it could be. Do you really think everyone followed the Dale decision, or even knows about it now? No. Do you think every parent who applies knows that atheists can't join? No one saw the Pack charter as being a case of religious discrimination - not in the Pack, not in the school administration, not in the PTA, not in the school body! But you yourself admitted that you would reject an atheist applicant, which IS religious discrimination. You simply had no opportunity; that doesn't change the fact that your school was unlawfully sponsoring a discriminatory club. That is what you cannot seem to understand. You are knocking yourself out for such a small group, it is really pretty sad. Ah, and here it is. Groups that are "small" enough can have their civil rights ignored.

molscouter, there's no reason to "clean up" a list that's no longer used and long out of date. I've generated a new list since then, and I'll generate another one later on. That list was to show (back in 2004-2005) how many government agencies were unlawfully chartering BSA units. Brent, the difference is that a public school that charters a pack is breaking the law. That isn't a "nitpick". And if it's such a trivial change, why was your pack chartered by a public school for years after the Dale decision?

Hunt writes: What you don't seem to get, Merlyn, is that in the real world, virtually none of those schools "ran" the private club. They provided no funds, no oversight, no staffing, and no services other than a place to meet, which they also provided to other groups that they didn't charter. What you don't seem to get, Hunt, is that legally, it was the school's youth group.

BrentAllen writes: Give it a rest, Merlyn. Public schools have only been chartering Packs and Troops for the past 75 years or so. In all that time, no one saw any "blatant constitutional violations." Both you and Fred Goodwin (in another thread) have stated that you would refuse membership to atheists in a pack chartered by a public school. Sorry, that IS a blatant constitutional violation. And be honest - you aren't interested in seeing the schools stop violating anyone's civil rights - you just want to force the BSA to change its policy. While I'd prefer that the BSA change its policy, I will not allow public schools to discriminate against atheists, period. If you were really interested in not "allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination" you would have gone after the schools, instead of going after the BSA. I've discussed this before - which looks easier: 1) individually contacting over 10,000 public schools that chartered BSA units prior to 2005, or 2) contacting the BSA Now, if it will make you feel better, I *do* intend to look for plaintiffs for any remaining BSA units chartered to government entities, and lawsuits would likely be filed against both the school and the BSA. The name of your group is "Scouting For All", not "No Religious Discrimination at Public Schools." I'm part of SFA, but I've been doing this on my own for years prior to that. Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled that a public school chartering a Pack is a violation of the constitution? No; however, you might want to read the oral arguments in Dale. Or did the BSA just agree to stop accepting charters to call of the rabid ACLU dogs? Even the BSA's lawyers could see that public schools couldn't charter BSA units that excluded atheists.

Fred Goodwin writes: If ACLU had won its direct attacks against BSA, it would never have launched those collateral attacks to begin with. Fred, what do you think the ACLU should have done when confronted by your Pack chartered by a public school, which refuses membership on the basis of religion? Ignore blatant constitutional violations?

I don't agree, Hunt, with public schools being one of the largest chartering partners back in the 1990s, the BSA was obviously acting like a public accommodation. The BSA is now, finally, being forced to act like a real private organization, which does not resemble their actions around the time of the Dale litigation. Real private organizations don't have public schools running their "private" clubs.

It also appears that two of the biggest supporters of the BSA's discrimination against atheists in this forum were hypocritical enough to have public schools chartering their supposedly "private" clubs, and they still can't see anything wrong with allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination.

BrentAllen writes: Wouldn't it be the school leaders that lacked principles, since they decided to own the charter? Wouldn't they be the ones violating civil rights? I'd have no problem with a lawsuit against you, the school, and the BSA in such a situation. In fact, the school could even countersue you for getting them into a lawsuit. We are just a Cub Scout Pack, lawfully discriminating within our rights. Not when you were chartered by a public school, no. The BSA can discriminate on the basis of religion because it's a private organization, but public schools aren't private organizations. How can we violate someone else's religious rights? When you were chartered by a public school, you were a public school's youth group, just like any other public school group like the school chess club. A public school's chess club couldn't exclude atheists. The Supreme Court has already decided that issue. I think you need to get your information straight. Uh, no. The BSA can discriminate on the basis of religion, but public schools can't. The supreme court certainly did not rule that public schools can charter BSA units. And if you think they can, why do you think the BSA agreed to recharter all units chartered to government entities?

Well, that's exactly why the BSA had to be forced to stop chartering their discriminatory BSA units to public schools. You apparently didn't care that your pack was breaking the law by having a public school unlawfully practice religious discrimination, or that you were exposing the school to civil rights lawsuits. And if you don't see the point in stopping public schools from practicing religious discrimination, I'd say you lack principles.

BrentAllen writes: What would I say? The same thing I would say now. It doesn't change anything. No, that isn't the question I asked. What would you do if an atheist cub scout applied for membership while your pack was chartered by a public school? Would you refuse him membership? Please answer yes or no. That is what you don't get, Merlyn - it doesn't change a thing! Whether we are chartered by the school or the PTA, is doesn't matter. Sure it does; if you are chartered by a public school, it's illegal for you to refuse membership to atheists, and if you did refuse, the public school, the BSA council, the national BSA, and possibly you personally would be subject to a civil rights lawsuit. Now, would you mind answering my original question? When your pack was chartered by a public school, would you admit atheist cub scouts (or cub scouts with atheist parents who would refuse to sign the DRP)?

BrentAllen writes: Tell you what, Merlyn - if I ever actually run into any atheists who realize their civil rights were being violated because our Pack was chartered by an elementary school, I'll be sure to point out that you were the man, the champion, who protected them. Fair enough? Sure thing. Be sure and tell them that your Pack was owned and operated by a public school, and that atheists could not be members. A clear first amendment violation. The atheists I do know have never said a word about it. Should I enlighten them? Absolutely. It's quite possible they didn't realize that your Pack was chartered by a public school, or that they don't understand that each Pack is a youth group owned & operated by its chartering organization. It's also very likely your school administrators didn't realize this; did they realize that the school would be practicing religious discrimination by chartering a cub scout pack? By the way, back when your pack was chartered by a public school, what would you have done with e.g. an atheist cub scout applicant, or a cub scout whose parents refused to sign the Declaration of Religious Principle?

Brent, that BSA fact sheet is not the source of my claim that there are still BSA units chartered to government agencies. And yes, I do in fact consider stopping thousands of public schools from violating the civil rights of atheists to be a victory, and hardly a shallow one. Civil rights are important to me.

Insuring that the BSA stops issuing charters to government agencies is hardly requiring that everything be "100% accurate", but it IS a requirement that they not violate the law. Government agencies can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Brent, now you're saying when the BSA's own fact sheet says that public schools charter 3,881 units, they're lying, and including units chartered by parents' groups? Are you saying that the 3,881 units includes pack 733, even though that isn't chartered by a public school? The BSA fact sheet includes "Parents' Clubs in Schools: 237,243 youth, 6,154 units", which is probably where pack 733 would fall under. So did you have a point?

So the writer, likely not researching the issue in the depth that you have, draws a different conclusion than you would? No, the writer wrote "alleged refusal to admit open homosexuals as members. This, however, is of course a lie." That statement is NOT a lie, as the CoL council HAS done so. The CoL council excludes gays, as it is forced to by the national BSA. And, of course, my list of government charters has always had a statement that the list is generated by computer and that there will be some on the list that are actually not government agencies, and some that were missed and that should be on the list, and requested that any corrections be sent in. As is, it identified thousands of BSA units chartered to government entities. Now, if you'd like to talk about "weasel wording", the national BSA said that by now ALL government chartered BSA units would have been re-chartered, and that any new charters would not allow government entities as chartering organizations, yet there are STILL about 3,000 such units. Some councils, such as the Sam Houston Area Council, appear to have done nothing to recharter units away from public schools, and the national BSA still issues charters to e.g. Pack 895 for James Bowie Elementary School in Dallas, which is easily googled to be a public school. Now, seeing that the BSA knows exactly how many units are chartered to public schools (see http://www.marketing.scouting.org/resources/factsheets/02-179.html ), all they have to do is check that total and see if it's not zero. If it's NOT zero, they have to recharter those units.

But now, the city of Philadelphia, under the leadership of Street, is seeking to evict the Boy Scouts from their city-owned Center City headquarters because of their alleged refusal to admit open homosexuals as members. This, however, is of course a lie. Right on the Scout's Web site it says, "Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council." That this is a lie, is itself a lie. The CoL council was forced by the national BSA to kick out Gregory Lattera. Notice that the CoL council was not allowed by the national BSA to sign a nondiscrimination agreement. That their web page says "unlawful discrimination" is unacceptable says nothing about "lawful discrimination" - the BSA's disrimination is lawful, so rejecting only "unlawful discrimination" does nothing. Such weasel-wording is just a dishonest attempt to deceive people.

Since homosexual behavior is observed in nature, it's "natural". Arguing against homosexuality on the basis that it's "unnatural" is simply ignoring reality. Please note that "natural" does not imply inherent goodness or badness, as lots of good & bad things occur in nature, so stating that something is "unnatural" does nothing for a moral argument, even if true. I'm just pointing out that stating that "homosexuality is unnatural" is contradicted by what is actually observed in nature.

"In perpetuity" in a lease does not mean forever; it simply means the lease doesn't need to be renewed periodically (like an apartment lease which typically must be renewed every year). All such leases have other ways to end, like 30 or 60 days notice. According to this article from 2003, it's a 1 year notice: http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=8 or http://tinyurl.com/ecxde ... The Council's Center City headquarters was built in 1929, after City Council had passed a resolution the year before allowing the Boy Scouts free use of the land in perpetuity. However, the city reserved the right to take back the land, provided it gave the Scouts one year's notice. ...

After about three years, the city is finally ending the Cradle of Liberty council's $1/year lease: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15096235.htm City poised to evict Boy Scouts council Mayor Street will evict the Boy Scouts's Cradle of Liberty Council from its city-owned Center City headquarters, or make the organization pay fair-market rent, unless it stops discriminating against gays. The mayor's intention - which would apparently bring to an end a dispute that has been roiling for more than three years over scouting's policies toward gays - was made clear in a letter written by City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. to William T. Dyer III, president and chief executive officer of Cradle of Liberty Council. "For several years, we have attempted to convince the Cradle of Liberty Council that its discriminatory policies are untenable and violate express City policy and law," reads the letter. "Regrettably, we have been unable to obtain adequate assurances that the Boy Scouts will not, while headquartered on City property, discriminate." The letter goes on to say: "We believe that ejectment, subject to a fair-market rent agreement, is an appropriate measure that recognizes the many contributions made by your organization." The council serves 87,000 members in Philadelphia, Montgomery and Delaware Counties, and is the third-largest in the country. "Until we've had time to put this in front of our attorneys and decision makers, it really isn't appropriate for me to comment," Dwyer said yesterday. Dwyer said, however, that the letter had surprised him because he believed the two sides "were still working." Cradle of Liberty Council spokesman Jeff Jubelirer had more pointed views. "With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of Philadelphia's children every day," Jubelirer said, "it is ironic the administration chose this time to destroy programming that services 40,000 children in the city." Stacey L. Sobel, executive director of Philadelphia's Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, said members of her organization had worked with the city and the local Boy Scout Council during negotiations. "This is a long-standing issue with the Boy Scouts," she said. "We're pleased that the city is taking action." She said her group would prefer that the Boy Scouts not discriminate at all. But "if they are going to discriminate, the taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing it," Sobel said. ...

This isn't a case of equal access, the city has several requirements, all of which must be met: 1) be a non-profit organization 2) offer services to the general public (that don't substantially duplicate what another organization offers) 3) follow the city's nondiscrimination rules in those services offered in (2)

Ed, you can remain ignorant if you like; I actually read up on BSA court cases, and any services the Sea Scouts offered would certainly be spelled out in the court documents, as that's very pertinent to the litigation. And yes, membership in the Sea Scouts is precisely the public benefit they offered in exchange for free berths.

Yes Ed, I've actually read a lot of the court documents on this case, and, as is perfectly obvious, the public service that the Sea Scouts offered was their Sea Scouts program. Unfortunately, this program isn't available to gays and atheists, which puts it in direct conflict with the city's nondiscrimination policy.

Ed, how are gay and atheist kids supposed to benefit from the Sea Scouts if they can't join?

packsaddle writes: And the day that a voter registrar in NC asked it of me and informed me that in NC I would not be allowed to vote if I didn't believe in god, was the day I stopped giving a direct answer myself. That would've been the day I'd've filed a lawsuit, if not several.