Merlyn_LeRoy

Hunt, religious organizations certainly can restrict their membership to religious people, like the freemasons. The BSA, by having e.g. public schools and military bases as sponsors for decades, was not acting like an exclusive religious organization, but as a public accommodation. They should have lost Dale on that basis (they should only have won if they had refused all government sponsors for decades). Also, the fact that many local units ignore the religious requirement and allow atheists to join their particular pack or troop shows how that particular rule is doing little more than excluding some boys who want to join based solely on their religious views, which is hardly different than how restricted clubs excluded Jews. You might note that my KKK examples show that both the KKK and the BSA discriminate as private clubs, yet the BSA often gets government perks that the KKK would not get, simply because many government agencies ignore the BSA's discrimination against atheists. Would San Diego lease 18 acres of a public park to the KKK for $1 and allow the KKK to use the park exclusively for their members during the peak summer months?

Ed, the San Diego cases and the Jamboree case, even if reversed, wouldn't somehow reverse Torcaso and allow public schools to practice religious discrimination. Plus, since both of those decisions would take years to reach an appeals court, it would be about 2 or 3 years since public schools had stopped chartering BSA units, so that wouldn't do anything to change the immediate problem of all packs and troops currently chartered to schools needing to be rechartered.

What would be overturned by the supreme court, Ed? The BSA has agreed to stop issuing charters to government entities, there's no court case to overturn.

ASM59 writes: Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would make arguments against an association between Scouts and Schools 50 years ago. The ACLU letter to the BSA threatening to sue public schools that chartered scout units cited Torcaso v. Watkins, which was a supreme court decision from 44 years ago. What has changed are not first amendment rulings but the BSA's insistence that it's a private religious group that excludes atheists.

Ed writes: Horse apples! The reason you don't explain is cause you can't! I can't to you, certainly. You keep on stating I can't learn! Nice excuse. You use it a lot when you are stuck. Stuck because you can't understand simple explanations, yes.

Ed writes: The only thing you have explained, Merlyn, is the legal issues. Yes, I've explained the legal issues many times, and you've shown you can't learn, because you keep bringing up the same invalid points over and over again, such as your idiotic claim that NOT chartering BSA units means the school is discriminating against the BSA. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. True, like the BSA's religious discrimination. However, I have no interest in trying to explain anything to you, because YOU CAN'T LEARN. Of course, the worst part about THAT is that you can't even learn that I have no interest in trying to explain anything to you.

Ed writes: I have no problem learning, Merlyn. Yes, you do, Ed. Plenty of people, including me, have tried to explain to you why public schools can't charter BSA units, but you still haven't learned that one. You just can't explain why what the BSA did was unethical! Yes I have, Ed. You just can't understand it, because you can't learn things.

Hunt writes: My point again is that ONCE BSA IS NO LONGER SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, why is it fair to criticize them for having a religious requirement for membership? Why ISN'T it fair to criticize them? People criticize the KKK for advocating racial segregation and denegrating non-whites; I sometimes criticize freemasons for excluding atheists (but since they at least act like a private organization and don't get goverment funds, this usually only happens if I notice a freemason making a derogatory remark about atheists). I'll continue to criticize the BSA for excluding and denegrating atheists - I also have first amendment rights, and I exercise them.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, I merely pointed out that the BSA acted unethically by chartering its private, discriminatory scout units to public schools; I have no interest in trying to explain ethics to you, as you have repeatedly shown that you are unable to learn simple concepts.

stlscouter writes: Never-saw a "NO atheists allowed" sign anywhere at any scout function. So what? They don't allow atheists to join - it's a "no atheists allowed" private group. Public schools can't sponsor such religious discrimination.

stlscouter writes: I believe the DRP states a positive..believe in a higher power-NOT the negative... "Atheists need NOT apply". That denigrates no one. The DRP states that only theist members can be "the best kinds of citizens". For a person who amasses data bases and shares them (with glee, appearently) with groups who seek to denigrate the BSA and chooses not to get into the really tough business of teaching ethics to youth-I would ask can you teach ethics to an atheist? Sure - don't you think it was unethical of the BSA to have public schools run their "no atheists allowed" private clubs for decades? Public schools can't legally do that, but the BSA didn't care. I actually did something to stop it. I'd say that stopping religious discrimination by thousands of public schools is very ethical.

Hunt writes: What exactly would you be criticizing, Merlyn? Would you criticize a Catholic youth group that excluded non-Catholics, or a Jewish group that excluded non-Jew? No, but how about a group that allows everyone EXCEPT Jews, or EXCEPT Catholics? Once the government entanglements are eliminated, isn't BSA just a religious group that excludes people who aren't religious? They also denegrate atheists. To put it another way, once you recognize a freedom of association, what is a fair reason to criticize a group's decision to associate together to the exclusion of others? Freedom of association doesn't include freedom from criticism, and the BSA has plenty to criticize. For example, their wholly-owned subsidiary Learning for Life teaches ethics to atheist students - how can LFL, owned by an organization that had to be threatened with lawsuits before ending their practice of having public schools discriminate against atheists on their behalf, and which still denegrates atheists, pretend to teach ETHICS to atheists?

Oh, that's legal, but I'd still feel free to criticize them as a group, just as I would a group of parents who got together to sponsor a youth group that excludes Jews. It's hardly an admirable thing to do, much like the private, whites-only proms that sprung up after schools couldn't legally sponsor segregated proms.

Bob White writes: No, that is not what I said. Explain this statement of your, then: "I am all for the local school boards being able to decide what values they choose to have shared. " By the above, are you saying that schools (or school boards) should be able to be the chartering organization for a Scout unit?

Bob White writes: Then why do you not support the U.S. Constitution's protection of freedm of association? I do, Bob, but public schools are government agencies, which don't HAVE freedom of association; if they did, they could keep out black students if the school board didn't want to 'associate' with them. Why do you get to pick and choose which get which rights get respected? I'm not doing that Bob, but you are. You think government entities ought to be able to practice religious discrimination against atheists and not respect those atheists' civil rights.

Bob White writes: I am all for the local school boards being able to decide what values they choose to have shared. By contrast, I'm for local school boards following the US constitution and not practicing religious discrimination.

Bob White writes: That's absolutely right Merlyn..EQUAL rights, not special rights. If they want to form a private organization for anyone who shares their beliefs and values they have as much right as the BSA and its members to do so. Yep. And public schools would have no business owning and operating youth units of either one, right? Or is that "absolutely untrue"?

Bob White writes: The issue here is not homosexuality that is causing the units to be dumped. The issue is legal harassment from the ACLU which has had a 25 year battle against the BSA, this is simply their latest ploy. School districts have enough financial problems without expensive and protracting legal proceedings as the ACLU has promised to begin against them. They are being forced to abandon the Scouting program from a simply practical financial standpoint. No, the issue is that public schools can't discriminate against atheists by running Scout units that exclude atheists. The "expense" excuse is just the BSA's lie to make them look good. ...This is a politically motivated attack by a politically motivated ACLU and nothing more No Bob, atheists have equal civil rights, which means (among other things) that public schools can't own & operate youth groups that exclude them. By the way, I would advice against rechartering with a PTA/PTO, as it's likely they are classified as public accommodations and cannot legally practice religious discrimination, either.

stlscouter, your previous message apparently means something to you, but I have no idea what. If you would like a good introduction to evolution and the problems with creationism, you can try e.g. www.talkorigins.org

stlscouter writes: But as I have tried to state several times, why does science have no theory about what was before the bang? There are various hypotheses, but since it's pretty hard to test this sort of thing, they remain hypotheses. Science has no problem having unanswered questions, and many answers in science just lead to even more questions. why does time go in only one direction? Many scientists have addressed this question too, like Stephen Hawking. This one probably has a better chance of being answered that your first question. Nobel, Einstein and other super scientists gave us ways to destroy everything but not one way to create anything. Einstein gave us ways to convert matter into energy and vice-versa. That's certainly creating things. Let me ask this -if the scientific theory of evolution is correct and evolution takes place in infinitesimal stages over long periods of time what happens to the natural selection process when science interferes? For example-invitrofertilzation interferes with the natural selection of conception or rather non-conception. The genome project is identifying certain genetic factors that can be "corrected" or call it genetic engineering. Abortion eliminates millions from the gene pool. None of the above adds to the diversity of the species. So scientists are interfering with evolution to a good end? Lots of things "interfere" with evolution, in that they can affect how successful individual humans are at leaving viable offspring. Religions discouraging sex outside of marriage, for example, also reduces what the gene pool could be, because presumably some people don't have sex at some point due to its influence.

Bob White writes: I did answer you, you simply did not like my answer. No Bob, you avoided answering. Your "absolutely untrue" statement to Prairie_Scouter is nothing more nor less than a deliberate lie. And once again you avoid answering, because it's obvious to everyone who has read the BSA letter to the ACLU that your statement is a lie, or anyone who has seen the BSA memo sent to all councils to recharter BSA units that your statement is a lie. And yes Bob, the ACLU letter to the BSA that resulted in dropping all public school charters actually was due partly to my effort; Adam Schwartz sent the letter after I generated a list of BSA units chartered by government agencies for the Scouting For All website. You'll notice that his letter to the BSA states that 300 BSA units are chartered by government entities in Illinois - he got that figure from our database: http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop/pax.php?st=IL Adam Schwartz's letter is here: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/bsaletter.pdf "It has come to our attention that some 300 local governmental units in the state of Illinois, and thousands more elsewhere in the United States, continue to directly sponsor Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs." I'm the one who BROUGHT it to their attention. Now, it really doesn't make much difference to me if you continue to lie and try to claim that public schools can still charter BSA units, but I may publically call you on it and call you a liar for doing so.

Bob White writes: I challenged them to show evidence of their knowledge and information. I still do. Hey Bob, I've challenged you to show evidence of this response of yours to Prairie_Scouter: "Public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units. Absolutely untrue. You have yet to show evidence of your knowledge and information on this point. The BSA has publically stated through their national director of registration that all units chartered to public schools will be rechartered before the next chartering cycle, and that public schools and other government entities will not be accepted as chartering organizations in the future. So far, your one attempt at "explaining" it referred to statements I made BEFORE THE BSA ANNOUNCED THIS CHANGE, which is completely dishonest of you. Your response of "absolutely untrue" is absolutely untrue, and you have yet to retract it or justify it.

Bob White writes: Merlyn When I said that few public schools chartered units you argued that many did. When the statement was made that they can't and I said they do, you now say they don't. Oh Well. Bob, I'm talking about this exchange between you and Prairie_Scouter in the 'sinking ship' thread from Aug. 19th: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=107649&p=2 "The military is no longer allowed to support Scout units. Untrue "Public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units. Absolutely untrue. Prairie_Scouter was listing some of fallout from national BSA policies, including the fact that the military and public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units. You seem to disagree; if you do, on what grounds? If you aren't disagreeing on that point, what do you mean by your responses? Bob, public schools used to be the #1 charter partner for Scout units, with over 10,000 units chartered. Last March, the BSA stated that all of these would be rechartered by the next chartering cycle. As this is still the transition period, there are still some that haven't been rechartered yet, but that number is supposed to fall to zero by the BSA's own statements, and the BSA has said that government entities (including public schools) will not be accepted as chartering orgs in the future. As Prairie_Scouter pointed out, losing their former #1 sponsor is one consequence of the national BSA's policies. Yet when Prairie_Scouter said that public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units, you said that was "Absolutely untrue". How can you claim that's an accurate statement?

Ed, I just said that the BSA is not a religion, so asking me what religion they are is pretty dumb. They aren't a religion; they ARE a religious organization, as BSA reps have stated many times.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims that Scouting becomes a religion through the belief in God. The BSA's own lawyers have been trying to sell this lie (e.g. Robert Bork Jr.), and some people seem to have bought it. But if you read the actual court cases, you'll see that the courts haven't ruled that the BSA is a "religion", but a "religious organization", which is what the BSA itself claims in court. Plus, since the BSA practices religious discrimination by having belief in (at least one) god as a membership requirement, the government has to treat the BSA as it would any other organization that discriminates on the basis of religion, which excludes any sort of special favors. Even a few principled conservatives are questioning why the government should spend money supporting a private organization.