Merlyn_LeRoy

[for some reason, I can't post in the original thread now] Ed writes: I read fine Merlyn. You just can't dance real well. No Ed, you can't read footnotes. If you want, you can write to Dave and ask him what he meant. Since I've been corresponding with him (plus I can read footnotes), I know he was referring to the US Census estimates for males 5-17. You're basing your statements on numbers that aren't factual! I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are. Wait! Didn't you post the statement "The The actual losses will probably be higher" was from your pals web site. Yes; I was wrong. I thought you were still referring to the figures on bsa-discrimination, because you referred to this statement as confirming that my numbers were "not actual", instead of a post I wrote 11 days earlier. Miki101 claims to have "actual numbers", but he refuses to post any of them.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

As I suspected Miki101, you're quoting footnote (1), which is clearly labelled as being the column for "Total Available Youth" figures from the US Census, which is what he's talking about when he says the 2005 estimate is not yet available - the estimate from the US Census Bureau for males 5-17. Sorry, your reading ability is as poor as Ed's.

Ed writes: I read fine Merlyn. You just can't dance real well. No Ed, you can't read footnotes. If you want, you can write to Dave and ask him what he meant. Since I've been corresponding with him (plus I can read footnotes), I know he was referring to the US Census estimates for males 5-17. You're basing your statements on numbers that aren't factual! I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are. Wait! Didn't you post the statement "The The actual losses will probably be higher" was from your pals web site. Yes; I was wrong. I thought you were still referring to the figures on bsa-discrimination, because you referred to this statement as confirming that my numbers were "not actual", instead of a post I wrote 11 days earlier. Miki101 claims to have "actual numbers", but he refuses to post any of them.

Ed writes: I read fine Merlyn. You just can't dance real well. No Ed, you can't read footnotes. If you want, you can write to Dave and ask him what he meant. Since I've been corresponding with him (plus I can read footnotes), I know he was referring to the US Census estimates for males 5-17. You're basing your statements on numbers that aren't factual! I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are. Wait! Didn't you post the statement "The The actual losses will probably be higher" was from your pals web site. Yes; I was wrong. I thought you were still referring to the figures on bsa-discrimination, because you referred to this statement as confirming that my numbers were "not actual", instead of a post I wrote 11 days earlier. Miki101 claims to have "actual numbers", but he refuses to post any of them.

According to the BSA, Exploring has NO members and no memberships; they have "participants." And yes, there's no reason why the sea scouts in Berkeley couldn't have become an Explorer Post years ago and freely admit gays and atheists, instead of trying to get free berths by using doubletalk that made it only seem like they could admit gays and atheists when they really knew they couldn't and really knew they didn't meet the city's requirements.

Miki101, I'll certainly apologize as soon as you point out to me where "he admits to not having 2005 numbers" as you've claimed. Until then, my stating you can't read well isn't so much a personal attack as an observation.

Well Miki101, if you write as badly as you read, I don't think I'd be interested. You still haven't pointed out where the bsa-discrimination.org page says he doesn't have figures for 2005; he says that about US census figures for 2005, but not BSA membership.

miki101 writes: Your buddy Dave's source could not be very far "inside National" because he admits to not having 2005 numbers. Where does he admit that? Are you also unable to read footnotes correctly? And what's the source of your numbers, which you keep referring to, but always as vaguely as possible? What are your totals for cubs, scouts, venturing, etc? And how about the link jkhny posted? http://www.iac-bsa.org/bsa_at_a_glance.htm Where did the Istrouma area council get these April 2005 numbers? Where did Mike Marks get these numbers for September and October 2005, which are quite close to the December numbers on bsa-discriminaton.org? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/venturinglist/message/12178 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/venturinglist/message/12170 How about this May 2005 press release from the national BSA itself, where the BSA's official spokesman Gregg Shields says the BSA serves "nearly 4.1 million" youth? http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47864

Rooster7 writes: Im not saying that I liked that particular law. I am saying - when the majority of voters become educated and/or enlightened, and reflect the same by voting for the appropriate representatives and/or referendums, that is when the law should be changed. You realize that both of the Lovings would've spent a year in jail for violating this law if it hadn't been overturned. Plus, even if the supreme court hadn't declared marriage to be a civil right, one justice pointed out that it couldn't possibly be constitutional for an act to be a crime solely due to the races of the actors. That's what the Virginia law did.

No, it wasn't Ed, you still can't read. Look at the web page again: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html Notice that the column marked "Total Available Youth(1)" has a footnote indicator. Notice that the estimate is marked as footnote 1: (1) The source of these numbers is the Population Estimates Program, Population Division, US Census Bureau. As the percentage of girls in Venturers is small, only males (age 5-17) are included in this column. As you can tell, there has been no decline in the overall number of boys available to join BSA from 1995-2002, and the declines in 2003-2004, do not correlate with BSA's declining numbers. The estimate for 2005 has yet to be released. The source of these numbers clearly refers to the numbers in the column marked with footnote (1), that is, the "total available youth", all males age 5-17 in the US, which is from the US Census Bureau, which has not released the estimates for 2005. Plus, of course, numbers for BSA membership would not come from the US Census Bureau. I did ask Dave (the webmaster of bsa-discrimination.org), who told me he got the figures from "inside BSA national". Given that an official BSA website has numbers from April 2005 that are even lower than these, and a BSA supporter also posted numbers in a Venturing yahoo group that he said he got from were also lower than these numbers, I'd say Dave's source is accurate.

Rooster7 writes: I would argue that the law you referenced violated the constitutional protection afforded African-Americans and others, which assures us all men are created equal. That is, discrimination based on racial makeup is wrong and unlawful. The laws against interracial marriage did treat everyone equally based on race. Everyone, no matter what race they were, had to marry someone of the same race. This argument was actually used before the supreme court in support of Virginia's law. And, as before, a quite large majority wanted such a law. I'm pretty sure even a majority of black citizens were in favor of such a law at the time. I can't see how your position could allow for a popular law like that to be ruled unconstitutional.

Rooster7 writes: For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters? It violates their rights because its the will of the people. The US government should never circumvent the will of the people so long as individual Constitutional protections are not being violated. Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution. So, in your opinion, laws against interracial marriage should not have been struck down in Loving v. Virgina? Over 2/3rds of the population at the time thought that interracial marriages should not be allowed.

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok? ... First, I have enough confidence in the majority of American voters that such a law would never come to pass. These very laws had existed not long ago in the US; Hawaii's law that said the potential for procreation was a marriage requirement wasn't struck down until 1984.

Oak Tree writes: If Berkeley was a private organization, they'd be free to give their money to anyone they wanted to, and I wouldn't complain. But because they are the government, they should not favor one group over another because of that group's exercising of its constitutional rights They aren't; every group that gets a free berth has to satisfy a number of neutral criteria, including a number of nondiscrimination requirements. The organizations that get free berths have to offer something to the general public in return - and they can't just offer that to white members of the public, or non-Jewish members of the public, or straight members of the public, or theistic members of the public. If you read the court opinion, it certainly looks like the Sea Scouts tried to deceive Berkeley into believing that the Sea Scouts fit the nondiscrimination requirements, even though they knew they didn't.

DanKroh writes: I'm not sure if you meant to imply that all non-Christians do not believe in an afterlife, but many non-Christians DO look forward to being reunited with their departed loved ones That isn't even an atheist/theist distinction; not all theists believe in an afterlife (deists don't necessarily do), and some atheists believe in some sort of afterlife (e.g. some atheists in India believe in reincarnation).

funscout writes: Merlyn, If Rooster says he would kill children if God tells him to, does that make him better or worse in your eyes? Worse. If he says he would disobey God, does that make him better or worse in your eyes? Better. Since you don't believe in God, I would think you would be happy to see someone struggle and then decide to disobey God. I'd rather they decide that gods are as real as demons or leprechauns and should be dropped as superstitions, but disobeying would be better than obeying. I would prefer that the 9/11 terrorists had not decided that their god wanted them to kill people, either. That's one of the problems with putting your moral decision-making into the hands of imaginary beings. The example you gave was from the Old Testament. As we all know, times are quite different now than they were before Jesus' time. I can not imagine killing a child just because God tells me to. So why was it OK back then? However, I know that God no longer does that Oh great, someone who "knows" exactly what his god will and will not do. ... Abraham was tested by God (again, in the Old Testament days) and although he was saddened greatly, he was prepared to kill his own son, Isaac, as God had directed him to do. I can not imagine being willing to do that. If I had lived in those days, then maybe I would understand, but I would have to say that I would disobey God if he told me to do that today. I am confident that God will no longer "test" people in that way, so the question is actually a moot point. No, that's ducking the question, and claiming that you know what your god would and wouldn't do. Slightly arrogant in my view. ... Also, as most people know, Christians are human beings, and thus, not perfect. But your god supposedly is perfect, and murdering children is, or at least was, OK with him. How long ago would a child murderer have to have committed his murder for you to be OK living next door to him with children?

Not at all, Rooster7. You obviously will do whatever you think your god wants you to do, and your own bible shows that sometimes your god orders people to kill children. So I can only conclude that you would murder children if that's what you thought god wanted you to do. If not, please state the opposite, that you would NOT murder children even if you thought your god wanted you to do so. If you don't state it one way or the other, you are simply running away from the question and trying to avoid having to state a position because you don't have the courage of your convictions. Plus, you have no problem making up positions that I supposedly hold, instead of ASKING me what my positions are, as I have asked you. You keep maligning atheists, yet you yourself lack moral character.

I'll take that as a "I would murder children" answer.

OGE, the ACLU filed an amicus brief: http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html ... 1988 In the Iran-Contra affair "the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Lt. Col. Oliver North, arguing that the federal criminal case against him, for perjury and other crimes, violated his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The prosecution's case against North, the ACLU argued, relied on compelled testimony he had given before a congressional investigating committee." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 375, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.) Rooster7 writes: The above is offered by a man, who does not recognize an immutable foundation or force for his own morality. Tell me Rooster7, if you were a soldier serving under Joshua, and his forces just took Jericho, and you were ordered to kill a bunch of children in the city ("Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." KJV), would you obey Joshua (who was doing what god ordered him to do) and kill children in a city you'd just conquered? Today that's a war atrocity. If you want to start a debate about morality, I'd like to know if you'd 1) disobey your god, or 2) murder children.

The funniest parts of this article are: Oliver North, a right-winger, stating as the guest speaker at a FOS fundraiser that the BSA is not some sort of right-wing organization. This makes as much sense as a group inviting the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan to their fundraiser to defend that group against charges of racism. Oliver North demonizing the ACLU, whose criminal convictions were overturned partly through the efforts of the ACLU. Hey, where are the ACLU critics complaining how they are letting criminals off on technicalities? The whole idea of Oliver North expounding on values and morals is ridiculous.

Here's the text of the decision: PDF: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S112621.PDF Word: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S112621.DOC

John-in-KC writes: I think if Mr Williams were to name names of specific United Ways which suppress our freedom of speech and freedom to worship, then there would be some back-spilt blood. The number of United Ways which supress your freedom of speech and worship is zero. Declining to finance a discriminatory club does not infringe on your rights at all.

Miki101 writes: Now tell me again, if your source document states that the 2005 BSA membership numbers have not been released - Where does it say that? The BSA "report to the nation" is right now, which is where they first publically announce their membership figures for the previous year. The footnote on the bsa-discrimination.org website talking about "estimates for 2005" is referring to US population estimates in the "total available youth" column. how does it actually know know that membership has actually declined by 400,000+. It's a guess isn't it? No, these numbers are quite close to figures posted by Mike Marks for October 2005: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/venturinglist/message/12178

Oak Tree writes: Also, it seems a little bit hard to tell if it's all public school related, or if some of the drop is due to increased attention to accuracy of the numbers, given some of the scandals. Do you have any data that helps sort that out? Not really; I should have better data in a couple of months in comparing number of units in 2004 vs. 2005. Membership stats by state or by council would also help, but I don't have that information.

You can if you like; the vast majority of those units existed only due to unlawful government support of religious discrimination, but the execs at the BSA weren't honest enough to move them all to private sponsors, even though they've had years to do so. If you want to reward incompetence, shortsightedness, and just not "being prepared", keep the same people running the BSA. This result was completely predictable years off.