Merlyn_LeRoy

BrentAllen writes: So they passed a treaty saying the United States was not a Christian GOVERNMENT, which is true - it does not dispel the fact that the country was formed as a Christian NATION. So, was this country also formed as a white nation?

Fuzzy Bear writes: It was stated that the BSA has the "appearance" of a religious organization. Why is it like a religious organization? Because the BSA has said in court that it is a religious organization, and courts have ruled that the BSA is a religious organization.

Eagledad writes: But we can all go to bible or what ever religous guide you choose and have the same basic guideline. One thing about the three major religions is the moral code is basically the same. So Eagledad, should polygamy be legal or not? Marriage is a pretty basic social construct, and if the big 3 religions are basically the same, then Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims should all agree on polygamy, right? This illustrates why I think arguing for laws based on religious precepts are much worse than arguing for laws based on almost any other basis - with religion-based laws, each person has their "answer" furnished by the ultimate authority figure, and if they conflict with someone else's religion-based law, there is no way to compromise. One person says "polygamy is not allowed because [my] god says so", and the other says "polygamy must be allowed because [my] god says so", and there is no way to reconcile these two positions. From the point of view of at least one of them, "god's laws" will be violated.

Hunt writes: Eamonn's analysis, I think, is most likely correct: BSA's position is what it is because it is the position of the largest and/or most influential of BSA's chartering partners. BSA won't change its position unless they do. Most influential, but not largest. The largest charter partner used to be public schools, and since they can't legally discriminate on the basis of religion (and in many states, sexual orientation), the BSA should have taken that into account, but they apparently didn't bother.

Hunt writes: I didn't see the reference to second-class citizens in the DRP. The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen". Good luck convincing anybody that this statement is some kind of terrible insult. There are plenty of atheists who find it insulting.

Hunt, I disagree completely. The DRP says that atheists cannot be the best kinds of citizens; at best, they can be second-class citizens. I call that denegrating.

Hunt, the BSA denegrates atheists via their DRP, which says that only theist members can be the best kinds of citizens. The RCC has its own rituals for its own members, and will exclude atheists as well as other Christians (if they don't consider those other Christians as being validly baptized, for example).

Hunt, I didn't say I don't object to the BSA's policies if they pull out of schools (which they haven't completely done, by the way); I certainly object to the way the BSA denegrates atheists. I also think the ACLU was on the right side, due almost entirely to the previous decades where public schools were one of the largest chartering partners for BSA units, as the BSA obviously was ACTING like a public accommodation for well over half a century.

Ed, I know what an agnostic is, but the BSA legal website seems to think that atheists and agnostics are excluded from the BSA.

Hunt writes: Do you think bringing--and losing--the Dale case helped the cause of those who would like to persuade BSA to change its membership policies? That was actually up to one person - James Dale. Even if everyone else in the US thought it was a bad idea, or thought it was a bad time, absolutely nobody had any kind of authority to prevent him from pressing a lawsuit. Do you think forcing BSA out of public schools makes it more or less likely that BSA will change its policy on the religious requirement anytime soon? I actually don't care; what I care about is stopping public schools from unlawfully violating the civil liberties of their students who happen to be atheists, and that's exactly what thousands of public schools were doing. That isn't even subject to debate - public schools CANNOT discriminate against atheists by owning & operating a private club that excludes atheists. If your goal is to persuade BSA that your position is ethically superior, these lawsuits are counterproductive. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Of course, if your goal is simply to protect your rights and not persuade anybody of anything, I guess they make sense. I'm certainly not about to let the government violate my rights in order to seem more "persuasive" - you seem to think doormats are epitome of persuasion. I guess a simpler way of putting this is that people involved in scouting are more likely to be persuade by a person who says he loves scouting than a person who makes it clear that he hates it. Yeah, that David Rice and Scott & Steven Cozza really built up a lot of hate by being in Scouting for decades, right?

By the way, it'll be interesting to see if Brad Royal is now kicked out: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4966791&nav=0Ra7 ... Brad Royal is scout master of 27 scouts. Royal and scout masters nationwide were worried they might lose the ability to recruit scouts and hold meetings in public schools. "If not there? Where? I don't want to recruit them off the street corner," says Royal. Scout Master Royal is also grateful for the outcome even though he's agnostic. ... http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-113.htm Q. What allows the Boy Scouts of America to exclude atheists and agnostics from membership? A. The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership group. As with any private organization, Boy Scouts retains the constitutional right to establish and maintain standards for membership. Anyone who supports the values of Scouting and meets these standards is welcome to join the organization.

The Scalise case (as it was eventually argued) ended up being about use of school facilities and outside groups passing out fliers, and not about in-school recruiting. The Powell case in Oregon is about in-school recruiting, and so far the courts have ruled against allowing that. And as long as the BSA attempts to get the goverment to practice religious discrimination against atheists, there will be lawsuits.

Hunt, what's so bad about going to court? If my rights as an atheist are at stake, I know I have a much better chance in a real court of law than in the court of public opinion. My rights aren't subject to a popular vote.

I don't know where some of you have gotten the idea that the court ruling over the jamboree was somehow reversed by Rumsfeld; he doesn't have the authority to do so. Currently, the ruling is under appeal.

And thanks to the ACLU, the government can't compel you to testify by granting you immunity, then turn around and prosecute you for it, which would render both immunity and the fifth amendment meaningless. And if you don't want the BSA paying thousands to a criminal like Oliver North, that's hardly due to the ACLU; they were only interested in preserving the constitution.

GernBlansten writes: On a technicality. He had been granted immunity by the Senate and his appeal was based that his immunity protected him in criminal court also. The appeal was not based on his guilt or innocence, in fact, it really confirmed his guilt as he basically admitted to the crimes but couldn't be held accountable due to the deal he struck with the Senate. Yep, he was granted immunity (which also forced him to testify), which meant that they couldn't turn around and try to prosecute him later, as that would violate his fifth amendment right not to be compelled to testify against himself. Some notorious right-wing organization filed an amicus brief supporting North's fifth amendment rights - the ACLU.

This isn't the first time Ollie North has been the speaker at a BSA fundraiser (Ann Coulter too), and the Hiawatha Seaway Council's front page has a big picture of a book by Bill O'Reilly, which they are giving away to people who give $50 to their campership fund. If people haven't noticed how politicized the BSA has become, they just haven't been paying attention.

The figures from bsa-discrimination.org don't match the figures put out by the BSA for their end-of-year 2005, which are now up on the BSA website: http://www.scouting.org/media/review/2005.html Their figures show a drop of just over 200,000, not including Learning For Life. Given that the BSA says their overall membership dropped by only about 200,000 from Dec 2004 to Dec 2005, but the following January their membership drops by about 800,000, their end-of-year membership figures are geared to show the largest number, not the most accurate. I would be interested in where Adam's SE and bsa-discrimination.org got their numbers, and why there's such a difference.

CA_Scouter writes: OK, so that implies that at some point in the past, you were ok with the BSA. When was that? Before they were claiming to be a private, discriminatory, religious organization (while at the same time having public schools as their largest charter partner). Back before they were throwing out atheists and gays. nldscout, if you think the NY Post has deliberately defamed the BSA by making up a case that doesn't exist, let's see if the BSA demands a retraction.

Ed, 12-year-olds can't legally give consent. That's what "statutory rape" refers to. And no, I'm not going to try to explain to you yet again why a public school can't own & operate a private club with religious requirements for membership.

I'm hardly pointing this out with "glee", I'm pointing out how bad the BSA has become. Have you looked at the Grand Teton council and the lawsuits they're now facing? This is more of the same.

Well Ed, if you think the BSA's blaming the victim is the same as the ACLU pointing out that public schools can't charter discriminatory units is "the same", I'm certainly not going to bother explaining how one is reprehensible and the other is supporting the constitution.

Ed writes: What was your point in posting this article? To show how the BSA is unethical; it's their lawyer putting forth this defense, Ed. Don' t you think it's an unethical defense?

Ed, I realize you can't seem to learn things, but this is something the BSA is apparently doing NOW, not four years ago. The BSA's lawyer is trying to get a lawsuit against them dismissed by blaming the victim. And if you're wondering where she got her facts, she SAYS so in the article - she got it from the BSA's 24-page motion for dismissal. And if you're wondering why "everything you've read" didn't mention this, consider the fact that your court TV description said the criminal confessed "Tuesday", while the Post article says he confessed in 2002, and that the BSA's motion for dismissal is over a lawsuit that came AFTER this. This is a CURRENT lawsuit; the criminal case was four years ago, but this is about a lawsuit from the family against the BSA.

Hey Ed, what's "digging deep" about referring to a NY Post editorial that appeared on the day I posted it? THe NY Post story is about how the BSA's lawyer is arguing liability.