Merlyn_LeRoy

OK, here's the most patriotic game on the internets, Don't Torch That Flag, Hand Me The Lighter, the only game where the object is to NOT burn the US flag: http://www.firesigntheatre.com/flag/index.html

Ed, anyone who wants to change the DRP obviously doesn't agree with it as written, so by the rigid, everyone-must-subscribe-to-the-DRP standard, anyone who wants to change it doesn't quite agree with it, so they've kicked themselves out, and their opinions on what it should be are ignored. There are no typos in the DRP. A "better way to phrase" something, again, would mean the person proposing the change doesn't agree with it as written, and has excluded themselves. So the DRP can never change (as long as the rigid, everyone-must-subscribe-to-the-DRP standard exists).

Prairie_Scouter writes: Working within BSA is the route I've chosen. But, you have to be discrete about how you approach this when working from within, because as soon as you become more public in your views, BSA can toss you out, and has, in some cases. This is not a very open-minded organization when it comes to issues like this. I've argued with Bill Nelson in rec.scouting.issues, and during one argument, he made statements along the lines of: 1) only members of the BSA should decide the membership policies of the BSA 2) all members of the BSA currently have to agree with the Declaration of Religious Principle (DRP) I pointed out that this meant that the DRP could never change, due to the Catch-22 situation that any member proposing a change to the DRP obviously doesn't agree with it as written, and so immediately loses their membership - and, since they are no longer a member, they have no business deciding BSA membership policies...

tjhammer writes: And its all those other kids - like the ones in Matt's troop who taunted and teased him under the knowing eye of their leaders - who get a not-so-subtle message from BSA that it's OK to think of gay kids as "less than the best kind of citizen" simply because they are gay. Point of order; that's the message the BSA gives to atheists (via the DRP) - to gays, the message is that they can't be "morally straight" or "clean", according to their official statements in Dale v. BSA.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, I can explain it; I said I won't try to explain it to you. Your misinterpretation of "I won't explain" to mean "I can't explain" illustrates why I won't try to explain it to you. Why can't you just read the judge's decision? It spells out the legal reasons in laborious detail.

[duplicate post deleted](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed writes: Actually, yes I have. And it appears the ruling is based on a violation of the Establishment clause. So if you agree (and you have) this isn't establishing a religion, then how can it be a violation? I thought you said you read the decision? Like all legal decisions, it goes into great detail on how that decision was reached, and why it's a violation. It's all spelled out, and it certainly isn't my job to try and explain it to you; you've never understood even the simplest legal decisions.

Ed writes: I understand fine, Merlyn. No, you really don't. As an example, when I said that funding the Jamboree did not establish a religion, you assumed incorrectly that I agreed it wasn't in violation of the establishment clause. The problem is there is no 1st Amendment violation here! The problem is that a federal judge has ruled that there IS a 1st amendment violation here. Have you even bothered to read the decision to find out why?

Ed writes: So funding the Jamboree is establishing a religion? No Ed, funding the Jamboree is NOT establishing a religion, but it is a violation of the establishment clause, because the establishment clause covers much more than you comprehend.

Ed, here are parts you don't understand: You wrote: Funding a BSA event is not establishing a religion! I replied: I never said it established a religion. You: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," You agreed this isn't happening. Wrong. You erroneously seemed to assume that I agree with you over what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. I don't, I agree with the court that funding the BSA is a violation of the establishment clause. Keep in mind that the constitution says "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and NOT "no law respecting an establishment of *A* religion." Here's another example: You: The BSA doesn't exclude atheists. Atheists don't meet the membership requirements of the BSA. Me: Ed, sophistry doesn't work in court. You: It's OK for you & the ACLU to say the BSA discriminates against atheists but it's not OK for the BSA to have a membership requirement that requires belief in God? I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with that comeback. My remark about your laughable sophistry is how you try to claim that the BSA doesn't exclude atheists, it's their membership requirements that keep them out(!?) Using idiotic logic like that, an organization that has "members cannot be Jews" doesn't exclude Jews, it's just that Jews don't meet their membership requirements. And suddenly NO organization excludes anyone, it's all the fault of their respective membership requirements. Courts won't buy that. Even the BSA's official legal website says that they exclude atheists and agnostics.

Ed writes: Nice word for spin, Merlyn. It's OK for you & the ACLU to say the BSA discriminates against atheists but it's not OK for the BSA to have a membership requirement that requires belief in God? No, Ed, you can't read, and I'm not going to try explaining it too you, as you never understand even the simplest things. Hey madkins007, if the messages were signed "Merlyn LeRoy", it was probably me, I don't know anyone else who uses that nickname.

Ed writes: The BSA doesn't exclude atheists. Atheists don't meet the membership requirements of the BSA. Ed, sophistry doesn't work in court.

Ed writes: There is no 1st Amendment violation here! Ed, you are incapable of understanding the first amendment. You think it's legal for the government to financially support a group that excludes atheists, yet you also insist that the BSA can't kick you out of their private club if you say something they don't like (as you've said in another thread). Wrong on both counts. OGE writes: Merlyn, I wasnt aware the military "ran" the jamboree, I said "help run". Here's part of the judge's decision; NSJ=Nat'l Scouting Jamboree: The cost of providing support for the NSJ varies from year to year, but for the previous two NSJs in 1997 and 2001, the DOD spent approximately $6 million and $8 million, respectively, on the Jamboree. These funds were used to pay for services provided in support of the event itself, but also for the costs of transporting and billeting the large influx of soldiers brought to Fort A.P. Hill to perform services during the event. ... In 1997, the DOD spent $150,000 to purchase general medical supplies, more than $13,000 to purchase pediatric medical supplies, and $468,000 to restore sites and to repair and return all borrowed vehicles and equipment to their proper owners after the NSJ was over. ... Some of the appropriated funds have also been used to support Scouts earning merit badges, for military performing units, for publicity of DODs support of the Jamboree, for travel of DOD personnel, and for transportation of equipment. I think "help run" is a reasonable description. Do you think the military recruiters need $13,000 in pediatric medical supplies, or is that for the benefit of the attending Scouts? As for arguments that this decision will be overturned, I still haven't seen anyone state a reason why.

Kahuna writes: It seems almost certain to be overturned on appeal, either by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. On what grounds? You can't simply say "I like the BSA and want the government to finance Jambo" over and over, you know. You need to make actual legal arguments on why this decision should be overturned. OGE writes: Merlyn, what I am saying is the Jamboree is a natural place for the military to seek out future members. It is true that atheists can't attend, but I did invite you to gather 35,000 youth and see if the military would help out putting on a 10 day event. And will the federal government pass a bill to help pay for this atheists-only event? Judge Mannings' opinion said that the federal legislation allocating funding for the BSA Jamboree was unconstitutional because the BSA is a religious organization, and the sole intention of that legislation was to fund an event by that religious organization. The military doesn't just recruit, the federal government allocates millions each year to finance the Jamboree. If the BSA, as a private, discriminatory organization wants to put on its own Jamborees without government aid, they can certainly do that, and it would probably be legal for the military to send recruiters to such an event, just as they send recruiters to other similar events. But that doesn't mean the military can finance and help run the event itself.

Ed writes: Funding a BSA event is not establishing a religion! I never said it established a religion. But government funding of a program that excludes people solely due to their religious views is in violation of the first amendment. OGE writes: And merlyn, come up with 35,000 atheisists in the prime demographics and the US military will spend bunches of bucks on a recruiting party for them as well. OGE, are you saying the Jamboree isn't a real Scouting event, and is just a recruitment drive for the US military? Can atheists attend this recruitment drive? Or is the US military running a recruitment drive with religious requirements for attendance? Think that's constitutional? EMB021 writes: Claiming that we violate the 'establishment of religion' clause or that the BSA is a 'religiously exclusive private club' is nonsense. The BSA expects only that you can meet the concept of 'Duty to God' as YOU see it. It does not require that you believe in a particular religion. It doesn't matter how much you try to water it down; excluding people for having the "wrong" religious views means the government can't finance it. Keep in mind that "Duty to God" is a world-wide fundamental principle of Scouting. Without it, we aren't doing scouting. Keep in mind that a number of countries explicitly allow their Scouts to join using a promise that excludes any mention of gods, and that Baden-Powell himself wrote an optional promise that he called the "outlander" promise, which omitted the parts about King and god.

madkins007 writes: How does funding a Jamboree, which represents Scouts from hundreds of religious backgrounds, qualify as 'establishment of religion' Because the BSA insists on excluding membership based on religious requirements. It doesn't matter if the specific religious requirements are "believe in god" or "accept Jesus as your lord and savior" or "anyone who isn't Jewish" or for that matter "atheists only". The government can't fund such religiously exclusive private clubs. Lessee- we can't celebrate Christmas, Hannukah, or even Saturnalia in school or have ANY song with even the vaguest hint of religion in it. Even Santa is suspect. We can't have any sorts of blessings at any school event. Public schools shouldn't "celebrate" religious holidays, as families and individuals ought to decide what religious holy days they celebrate, instead of having some anonymous school board decide what religious celebrations will get official recognition, or what god(s) will be asked to bless "our" school or curse the opposing school of this week's football competition. And yet... our money still says 'in God we trust' and some school districts are forced to teach some form of 'creation science'. "Our" money did just fine before a couple of religious fanatics (including Salmon P. Chase) had that put on currency, and the ACLU is fighting 'creation science' because it's really teaching religion dressed up as science.

I've stated before that the government should be neutral. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[some] see nothing wrong with using governmental power to push your religious views. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Oh, I think the supreme court came up with another muddled, bad decision, Ed; Trevorum and gavvin listed a lot of good reasons why. Of course, since the TX monument was erected to PROMOTE A MOVIE (Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments"), we'll see if American Atheists (or a Texas group like Metroplex Atheists) are refused permission to erect a monument, too.

Don't be too concerned, Packsaddle. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

And to the chagrin of others, the population of nonbelivers continues to grow in the US, in spite of heavy-handed efforts by him and his ilk to have the government push his religious views. And if the shift in public sentiment regarding religion happens to go all the way to the government erecting stone monuments quoting Thomas Paine when he said "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church", there will be no recourse, as Paine certainly had an influence on this country's founding, and that's obviously the intent behind erecting such stone monuments, right? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Both Abbie Hoffman and Barbara Bush used US flags as clothing, but only one was arrested for it. Try to guess which one before peeking: http://www.nypress.com/18/23/news&columns/paulkrassner2.cfm http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/Rios061203.html "Desecration", apart from being a religious term, appears to be related to the person's political opinions.

NJCubScouter writes: There may actually be a separate Learning for Life corporation, but it doesn't seem to actually run the Learning for Life program, the BSA does. Oh, c'mon, www.learning-for-life.org has their OWN address right there at the bottom: If you are unable to locate an office in your area, contact Learning for Life's national office at 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, Texas How can you seriously say the BSA controls L4L? I suggest you write the BSA's national office at 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, Texas and ask them to clarify the situation.

whitewater writes: already mentioned that the Girl Scouts' lease was excusively negotiated and was approved at the same meeting as the BSA lease. As far as I know, the GSUSA hasn't claimed to be a religious organization, nor has it been ruled to be a religious organization. I believe the Campfire Girls and YMCA leases were also exclusively negotiated. Lemme know if you ever get any details. There is nothing illegal or wrong with an exclusive negotiation. According to the court, when dealing with a religious organization, there is. The City received value in the deal. That doesn't change the matter. My point is if you are going to make it more difficult for a religious organization to lease public land then you are being hostile toward religion which is illegal viewpoint discrimination. It isn't more "difficult", it's to insure that the state doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion. City governments can't arbitrarily decide what religious groups get special deals. That point is moot however since the court erred when it considered the BSA to be a religious organization. In doing so, it ignored Supreme Court precident that stated that the BSA was not a religious organization for purposes of the Establishment Clause. In fact, if the BSA were a religious organization in this context, the entire Dale case would not have been necessary since it has been well established that religious groups can choose their own leadership. I don't think the supreme court addressed whether the BSA was a religious organization or not. Can you quote from the opinion (which doesn't include any dicta) where it says that?

whitewater writes: So Merlyn, you are saying that the BSA should be held to a different standard than other groups? There were at least 8 other groups that were allowed exclusive negotiations for leases. As I've already said, any religious organizations granted non-bid leases ought to be struck down on the same grounds as the BSA lease. But nobody seems to have any real information on these other leases. Whether or not the BSA calls itself a religious organization is irrelevant- what matters is the legal definition. And the court ruled that they are a religious organization.