Merlyn_LeRoy

The BSA won the right to discriminate in any way they like. They can discriminate on the basis of religion, and not even racial discrimination is as well covered as religion, as racial discrimination is covered by statutory law, but religious discrimination (while usually included in legislation involving racial discrimination) also involves the constitution if the government is a party.

As I suspected, gay and atheist kids DON'T count in your world. Atheists don't "exclude themselves" from the BSA any more than Jews "excluded themselves" from Restricted clubs in the 1950s. Or would you be OK with public schools running youth groups that kept Jews (and only Jews) out for being Jews? Think that would be legal, tortdog? And if a religious organization like the BSA can recruit in public schools during school hours, you'll see churches getting in to recruit schoolkids to join their religion.

Hey tortdog, what about the gay and atheist kids? Don't they count? It appears not. The BSA's letter to the ACLU shows more of the BSA's hypocrisy - they ask the ACLU for more time to re-charter some units to poor kids, but do you think the BSA will allow gay and atheist kids to join those units while they still have government charterers? Any bets on that? The Powell case in Oregon is largely over in-school recruiting; it's been dragging on for years. The recent ruling by the Oregon court of appeals sounds like the ACLU will win.

Tortdog, you seem to have missed the recent news where the BSA agreed to re-charter all BSA units currently chartered to public schools and other government agencies: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml There ARE a lot of BSA units in Texas chartered to public schools (Texas is the worst, with about 25% of all Packs chartered to schools). All of those will have to find private groups to charter them.

No, I'm right - public schools can't own & operate "no atheists allowed" clubs, even if they operate other clubs that atheists can join. You might want to consider why the BSA didn't even TRY to fight the ACLU on this.

George Carlin and the Firesign guys go way back, and laugh.com, which is part-owned by Carlin, brought a lot of Firesign albums back into print on CD.

tortdog writes: what's the problem with a school (or city sponsoring a BSA unit? They do in Houston. In order to sponsor a BSA unit, the sponsor must agree to exclude atheists; public schools and other government agents can't do this. We believe that the United States is formed under God. Well, I don't. Guess what? The government has to treat both of us equally, regardless of what our religious opinions are. That includes youth groups sponsored by public schools. We don't believe it belongs to the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists or Jews...but we do believe it belongs to God. Well, I don't. What's the problem with a government that believes in the creator Uh, no. "A government" is not an individual with a religious opinion and religious rights, it's a collection of people with varying opinions. Saying "a government" believes in a creator is nonsense. If you're just arguing that the majority religious opinion should be enforced by the government (which is unconstitutional under US law, though plenty of other countries do so), come right out and say that. But don't try to say that "a government" believes something. It can't, it isn't a sentient being. sponsoring a BSA unit that believes in good citizenship and a duty to God and country. Government entities in the US can no more do this than they can sponsor a youth group that excludes Jews, or that only allows Catholics.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

ScoutNerd writes: Merlyn, maybe not the building, but the supreme court (and the judicial system in general) does have more than a few references to God. "whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ___" (fill in the blank) Unless it's just been too long since I've been in a courtroom and the don't actually say that anymore (pity if they didn't). It is, and always has been, optional. The only oath in the constitution is for the office of president of the US; here's the entire thing: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's it. Notice what isn't there. Also, the very first law passed by the very first congress was the Judiciary Act of 1789: That the Supreme Court, and the district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath. Plus article 6 prohibits religious tests. Acutally to bring back a random point I made a few pages earlier, there are references to God in other forms from the government too, such as currency. Even on nickels and pennies, they somehow find room to squeeze in "in God we trust". And your point is? I'm definetly not telling you, the ACLU or anyone else to attack the government for this, merlyn, but I would like to hear your opinion. Well, currency should no more have "in god we trust" on it than "gods are myths" or any other sort of comments on religion; the government should be neutral. If you think IGWT should be on currency, will you go along if later on people succeed in changing it to "gods are myths"? The government is still exercising the same power to put religious comments on money, after all; whether you happen to agree with the sentiment is irrelevant - you've implicitly granted the government that power if you think a message you agree with should be propagated by the government, and it will be much too late to rescind that power if the message changes to something you don't like. It's really a question of whether you think the government ought to have the power to promote some religious idea on currency. The actual message being "in god we trust", "gods are myths", "Jesus is lord", "allah akbar", "god is white", or any other message that promotes some religious view that some citizens are certain to disagree with, is immaterial.

Ed writes: A public school isn't a government agency. Then what is it? And you are apparently ignorant about the US supreme court building. You can remain so.

Ed writes: Your list did nothing but inflate the numbers in your favor! No Ed, my list is imperfect BOTH ways; it includes some units that should be included, and excludes some units that ought to be included. For example, I've included some units where the charter partner is "Town of xxx", but I have since found that some units chartered by towns have their charter partner listed as "Village of xxx" - and since my extraction scripts looked for "town" but not "village", I missed those. Some are ambiguous - is this a government agency or not? Barrow, AK Pack 2058 North Slope Borough And as I've already said, it's a moot point. I created it with the intention of removing all government BSA charters, and that's what's happening. Look at e.g. www.stlbsa.org

Hey Ed, I've told you before (but you never seem to learn) that my list (which has always been marked as imperfect due to the way it's generated) has served its purpose and is only needed to check up on the BSA's honesty in agreeing to end all public school charters. My list showed the IL ACLU the size of the problem, which prompted a letter from the ACLU to the BSA, and the BSA agreed to stop issuing BSA charters to government agencies. My list will still be of some use in seeing if the BSA actually complies. You, on the other hand, accused the ACLU of being selective in its "persecution" for not going after menorahs, when a simple search would have found that the ACLU DID include a menorah in the Allegheny lawsuit, and the courts ruled against the ACLU.

Well Ed, it looks like you might need directions to find a rest room, since you obviously couldn't find out (or more likely, didn't bother to find out) that the ACLU has argued AGAINST menorahs, and some of the lower courts agreed, but the supreme court reversed that part of the decision in Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) Yes, a court of mostly Christians decided that a Jewish religious symbol was secular. Don't ask me how - it looks possible that the supreme court will rule ten commandments OK on the grounds that they are religiously meaningless(!) Currently, it's unlikely that an ACLU would take on a lawsuit to remove a menorah, because that would pretty much require the supreme court reversing a fairly recent decision. But it wouldn't hurt to find out what the ACLU has actually done before criticizing it - but then this whole ignorance-laden thread wouldn't even exist.

Sorry, I actually didn't realize that I was listed as a spokesperson (though it looks like practically everybody on the board is listed as a spokesperson). In any case, I haven't been speaking as a SFA spokesperson (and I've been posting here long before I was a member of SFA, for that matter).

schleining writes: Merlyn- you quoted a typo... It should have read "It is NOT the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money." Dang... a typo and I add to his agrument. Shame on me... I'll have to do a better job proofing my posts. NO the HUD should have known better than to get into a contract with something it could not support. I figured you meant to type "not the BSAs problem", and I disagree. When a BSA council signs a legal contract with HUD to not discriminate on the basis of religion, that council will be in a LOT of trouble using that money for their discriminatory Scoutreach program. And BSA councils are still doing it. Uncleguinea writes: If you are indeed a different Brian Westley than the one listed on the Scouting For All website under board members, then I hope you'll accept my apologies. No apology needed; I am a board member (assistant director, midwest region), but I'm not a SPOKESMAN. I don't speak for SFA. You're a member of the BSA, I assume, but you aren't a BSA spokesman either, I'd wager.

Uncleguinea writes: I find it interesting that although Merlyn continually points out that his beef with the BSA is that the organization accepts government support even while he serves as a spokesman for an organization committed to seeing that anyone who wants to be a leader or a scout in the BSA could be. I'm not a spokesman for SFA. And what's so interesting about advocating that an organization stop discriminating, while simultaneously advocating that the government not support that discriminatory organization? It's two sides of the same coin.

Hey OGE, you can get it on a bumper sticker: http://www.lodestonecatalog.com/cgi-bin/ltmcat.cgi?sku=FMCH101 Or the album itself on CD, of course: http://www.lodestonecatalog.com/firesign.html End of plug.

schleining writes: It is the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money. Getting money from a government agency often involves signing a contract; if the contract specifies that the recipient not discriminate on the basis of X, Y, and Z in the use of that money, it's both the government agency's and the recipient's responsibility to follow the contract. Here's where the Old Baldy Council signed a HUD contract to fund a Scoutreach program; the OBC signed an agreement that it would not discriminate on the basis of religion in conducting that program, in spite of the fact that atheists can't join: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Old_Blady_Complaint.pdf The OBC is being sued for defrauding HUD. Plus, of course, it looks really bad when an organization that purportedly teaches kids to be honest is caught committing fraud. Stop thinking that the BSA is like the Public School system and open to all. Who has been saying that?

No Ed, comparing evolution and gravity is quite apt, since both terms are used to indicate fact and theory. Gravity is a fact, but it is also a theory. Same with evolution. A change in allele frequencies has been observed.

Ed writes: Evolution is a theory. There is no proof to make it a fact. And there is proof the Bible does stand up to science. Hmm, who should I believe, a Nobel prizewinning scientist who discovered the structure of DNA and has been active in science for over half a century... Or Ed. Ed, evolution (a change in allele frequencies over time) has been observed. It's a fact just like other observed facts. And, just like 'gravity' can refer to the fact of gravitational attraction OR the theory of how gravity works, the term 'evolution' can be used to refer to observed facts OR the theory of how it works. You have to judge by context.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide, rock star Hotblack Desiato of Disaster Area spends a year dead for tax reasons. Hey, I *am* the webmaster for the Firesign Theatre, and I've actually written material that they've performed.

Douglas Adams is just spending 5 years dead for tax purposes.

Torveaux writes: So Merlyn, If atheism is a religion (as you seem to be saying) then by removing other religions from government is exactly what you claim to be fighting against! What you are advocating is tantamount to government endorsement of the religion of atheism. Nope. First of all, I DON'T say atheism is a religion; in fact, I say that atheism is NOT a religion, just as theism is not a religion. Most religions have some kind of theism as a tenet of that religion, and there are a few religions, like the Raelians, that have atheism as a tenet of that religion, but atheism (and theism) per se are not religions. Having said that, the government shouldn't promote atheism OR theism. Removing religious references from the government actually makes it NEUTRAL on the subject of religion; if e.g. a public schoolteacher teaches that gravity makes planets orbit the sun, the teacher is not saying anything about gods, and is NOT promoting atheism OR theism (though someone who thinks angels move the planets, as many people used to, might consider that teacher to be promoting atheism, since it conflicts with their theistic beliefs). Many theists claim that removing government promotion of theism is somehow promoting atheism - it isn't, it's being neutral. The atheist counterpart to "under god" in the pledge would be to CHANGE it to "under no gods" or something similar - removing the phrase and restoring the pledge to its pre-1954 wording returns it to the religiously neutral version that it was for decades. The atheist counterpart to "in god we trust" on currency would be to CHANGE it to "in no gods we trust" or something similar - removing the phrase would restore currency to being religiously neutral, like buffalo-head nickels. The atheist counterpart to having the ten commandments (and allowing no others) on courthouse lawns would be to CHANGE it to "no gods, no masters" or something similar - removing such monuments (or allowing ALL monuments on an equal basis as a public forum) would restore courthouse lawns to being religiously neutral. I think it's very telling that you see neutrality as promoting atheism. You don't get to have it both ways. I'm not. I'm against the government promoting atheism, too. Like that ever happens. I have quite a few atheist acquaintences, and they all try to avoid being considered a religion. The reason is simple, if atheism is a religion (I believe that it meets the requirements as well), then the ACLU argument that seeks to exclude other religions from government places is disengenuous at best and quite likely fraudulent. Wrong. Again, you aren't distinguishing between being neutral vs. promoting atheism. The ACLU argues for the government to be neutral - the fact that you consider that to be promotion of atheism is your problem. I also gather from the tone of your posts that even if Scouting had no ties to the government whatsoever, you would still oppose the existence of the organization. Yes; the BSA, as it officially exists now, denegrates atheists. You would oppose Scouts marching in parades, because you shouldn't have to see kids that have values. You would oppose the term 'Eagle' scout because it reflects on the national symbol. While the BSA has the right to do such things, I have the right to criticize them, too. Maybe if you explored religion a bit more you would not be so bitter. And maybe if you explored critical thinking a bit more, you would not mistake religious neutrality for promoting atheism. It isn't difficult to find hypocrisy in the BSA. For example, the 20 subcamps in the Jamboree are named after 20 living famous explorers: http://www.scouting.org/jamboree/resources/subcamps/index.html Notice that subcamp 12 is named after James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA (no, not Douglas Adams - this time I'm referring to deoxyribose nucleic acid). Dr. Watson is a very outspoken atheist; here are some quotes: "The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang-ups about souls. I see ourselves as products of evolution, which itself is a great mystery." "Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, "Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose," but I'm anticipating a good lunch." From a visit to Youngstown University: http://www.vindy.com/local%5Fnews/279051929445300.php ... More than 200 students listened to Watson as he told them he is a "total believer in evolution" and feels the Bible is "just not right" in the face of science. "The easiest way to believe in the theory of intelligent design is to never go to school," he said. He also confessed that he does not believe in a soul or anything divine. "So you don't believe in God?" one student asked. "Oh, no. Absolutely not," the scientist answered. "The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology," he added. "I wanted to understand." ... You might want to consider how the BSA could simultaneously honor Dr. Watson as a great explorer, yet they would refuse him membership. It's like a Restricted club honoring Albert Einstein while refusing Jews membership. It is, as DNA* might say, vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly hypocritical. *Douglas Adams

We interviewed Douglas Adams on Shockwave in 1993: http://www.romm.org/audio/index.html (about halfway down; my real name is Brian Westley) H2G2 was a radio play before it was a book. By the way, DNA is yet another person who could not join the BSA: http://www.americanatheist.org/conv26/photo1.html

I already quoted the letter I wrote; my real name is Brian Westley. The BSA has gone to court many times to exclude atheists; I'd say that shows they are intent on practicing religious discrimination. As long as they continue to do so, I'll work to cut off all their special government support. And Learning for Life is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BSA; L4L teaching ethics to atheists is like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the KKK teaching schoolkids about tolerance. Sure, the subsidiary doesn't discriminate or denegrate anyone, but the parent company does, and quite explicitly so.

It was a letter to the editor I wrote at the time the article was published. I also understand that schools and other government sponsorships are being changed over to being chartered by private groups, so your point is quickly fading into history. It only underscores my point; the BSA didn't see any problem with the situation until the ACLU finally threatened to sue them, which was due to me pointing out to the ACLU that there were thousands of government sponsored units out there. I don't think you'll convince many people that the BSA exists in order to spread discrimination, it exists rather to celebrate and support the ideals contained in that article. Scouting exists to help kids. It does direct it's program to boys and high school age girls who are heterosexual and believe in God. That's like saying the Klan Youth Corps exists to help white kids, not to spread discrimination. If the BSA didn't intend to spread discrimination, they wouldn't say that only theists can be the best kinds of citizens. The BSA has created Learning for Life and converted Exploring to be open to all, supporting those youth who do not qualify for membership in our traditional programs. And how well do you think an organization that denegrates atheists and gays is able to teach atheist and gay students about ethics? One thing the BSA says their Learning for Life program does is teach ethics. Do you realize Exploring was moved into Learning for Life due to ACLU lawsuits? The BSA didn't see any problem with police department Explorer posts excluding atheists, even after the Buffalo Grove PD had to drop their program because they couldn't exclude Rick Sherman for being an atheist. You certainly have the right to express your views here. We all share in that freedom. No, scouter.com clearly says they're a private forum. Nobody has a RIGHT to express their views here.