Merlyn_LeRoy

Anarchist writes: The BSA is vastly more inclusive than ever before in its history...its just some 'folks' who want 'in' and can't play by the the same rules (and who have deep enough pockets and twisted enough minds to try to hurt a good organization) "Playing by the same rules" means that the BSA, too, has to play by the same rules, which means that government agencies like public schools can't charter BSA units. The constitution prohibits the government from discriminating against its own citizens on the basis of religion, but I wouldn't expect someone who uses the name 'anarchist' to care much about actual US laws. The BSA has only itself to blame for chartering government agencies in the first place.

For computer slang, the New Hacker's Dictionary is best... TROLL: http://www.drbbs.com/jsw/jargon/jargon_35.html#TAG1986 (originally from the fishing term "trolling") I'm in it (under my real name, Brian Westley) http://www.drbbs.com/jsw/jargon/jargon_30.html#TAG1375

Uncleguinea, I'd respond to your point, but you didn't seem to make one. BadenP mentioned offhand that Cub Scouts had been growing the last few years, but that simply isn't so. A glance at the annual reports on www.scouting.org will tell you that.

Hey BadenP, you're the one acting all bitter and angry; I just pointed out that Cub membership has been declining, not growing over the last few years. You can ignore reality and pretend otherwise, but I'd advise dealing with it.

BadenP writes: While cubs have grown over the past few years boy scouts have not. How do you figure Cub Scouts have grown over the past few years? It's gone from 2,114,420 in 2000 (year of the Dale decision) to "approximately 1.9 million" in 2004

Stop lying Ed; I've already pointed out where you've tried a straw man argument.

Which is why I explicitly noted that the list was not 100% accurate or complete. And it's also why I try to quote people accurately; but you wouldn't know about quoting people accurately, would you Ed?

Why would it matter if a few private schools are mistakenly listed, especially when the reader is told that this is the case?

While they obviously don't like the BSA's discriminatory policies, http://www.bsa-discrimination.org has a lot of chronological information and things like legal documents and newspaper articles. You can balance that off with http://www.bsalegal.org , which also has a lot of legal documents and newspaper articles.

Prairie_scouter writes: The ACLU strategy, as someone else mentioned, could end up having some unanticipated, and very bad, consequences. Carried to it's logical end, the ACLU will force BSA to become a private religious organization, and that is exactly NOT what I think most people in Scouting would want. Do you realize that the BSA has said in court that it's a private, religious organization? The ACLU is only holding the BSA to its claim. And I've stated before I'm advocating for the rights of atheists, and that means that public schools can't sponsor Packs or Troops or Crews or Ships as long as National insists on a membership policy that excludes atheists. Public schools can't discriminate against atheists.

The Boy Scouts knew this would happen; check out the oral arguments in Dale v. BSA: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=963 ... QUESTION: May I ask also whether it makes any difference in the balance that the Court strikes that the Scouts are a federally chartered institution and that Government entities such as schools and fire departments and police departments and so on sponsor troop units? Does that make a difference, particularly if the governmental unit itself takes the position that it would disagree with this determination that the Boy-- MR. DAVIDSON: Let me answer both of those questions in order. As to the Federal charter, virtually everything conducted in the corporate forum is necessarily chartered by a Government entity and, as this Court said in the Gay Olympic Games case, San Francisco Arts and Athletics, that doesn't deprive a corporation of its private character. With respect to Government sponsorship, everybody who sponsors a Scout troop signs on to follow Scouting's values and procedures. If, for political or legal reasons, they shouldn't be doing that, their remedy is to not continue to support Scouting. QUESTION: Well, I must say, I found it somewhat difficult to assess the relevance of this web of relations that the Boy Scouts have in New Jersey with schools and fire departments. I'm puzzled about what weight, if any, to give to that. If you prevail on your First Amendment argument here, and you prevail in this case, do you think the schools and the fire departments (a) would be permitted, or (b) required, under New Jersey law, to sever their relations with the Scouts? MR. DAVIDSON: Well, with respect to the-- we have governments that are begging Scouting to go into Cabrini Green housing projects, and to have cub packs at women's prisons, but Scouting itself has pulled back considerably from goverment, taking the Career Awareness Exploring Program back and making it a nonmembership activity which doesn't involve oaths or membership or anything like that, so that many police and fire departments are no longer sponsoring Scouting units, because that's been moved over to Learning for Life. But I'm not sure if Your Honor was based on, as a matter of New Jersey law, or a matter of constitutional law. QUESTION: Well, no one thinks that-- or has suggested that this makes you a State actor, so I think the Fourteenth Amendment is out, but just as a matter of New Jersey law it would seem to me that the schools and the fire departments, to comply with the New Jersey law as interpreted by the supreme court, would have to sever the relation. Perhaps I'm wrong. MR. DAVIDSON: Justice Kennedy, that may well be. QUESTION: Are they places of public accommodation? I don't know. I-- if you-- MR. DAVIDSON: Justice Scalia, Kansas has held that a school is not a place of public accommodation, but there's authority in other States the other way. I don't know of any New Jersey authority. QUESTION: Anyway, your point is if Government giving any assistance to the Scouts is a problem, you'd rather, no thank you, not have the assistance than have to change your policies. MR. DAVIDSON: Right. The Scouts have said many times that their policies are not for sale, and if it costs the sponsorship, well that's-- so be it. ...

Yes Ed, my list of school BSA charters notes that: 1) the list is generated by computer and corrected by hand, so there are almost certainly errors 2) asks for people to send in any corrections, additions, or deletions Now, you claimed there were some schools that didn't belong on that list, but you never told me which ones. The point is moot now, anyway; the Illinois ACLU was able to use my list of 300 government charters in Illinois to send a letter to National to stop all such charters, and that's what the BSA is going to have to do. You, on the other hand, can't seem to be bothered to quote people correctly when you try to argue with them.

In reply to Its Trail Day, all the decisions I can find about the Kiryas Joel school district have gone against it, including a 1994 supreme court decision. There have been quite a few lawsuits over it, so there might still be some pending. The school didn't exclude anyone on the basis of religion, though. The courts found that the state erred in creating the school district to benefit one religious group. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-517.ZS.html

Hey, if you like, I could post articles about every BSA molestation case I see, but this newsgroup would fill up pretty fast. If the BSA officials involved in this weren't complete bastards, there would have been fewer kids molested.

I just told you Ed, this statement of yours was a lie: Yet Merlyn wants to say a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school having a rule of "No atheists allowed" I have NOT said that a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school having a rule of "No atheists allowed". I HAVE said that a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school running a "No atheists allowed" youth group. Notice that these are two different statements. Also notice that my denial of the first statement does NOT mean I think it would be lawful for a school to have a rule of "No atheists allowed" - my denial is only that I have not made the comparison you've indicated. That's what's called a straw man attack - misrepresent your opponent's actual argument and argue against the misrepresentation of that argument, instead of your opponent's real argument.

No Ed, what it means is you're stupid AND dishonest.

Ed, when you wrote: Yet Merlyn wants to say a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school having a rule of "No atheists allowed" ...you were lying. I was just pointing out that you lied about my position. Stop lying.

I posted it because it again shows the BSA acting dishonestly. I come across news articles involving BSA units and molestation, but I've never commented on them because none of those cases allege that BSA officials knew about it and ignored it. This case alleges that a number of BSA officials, including apparently someone at National, were told about this guy for years and ignored the warnings.

Ed, I wasn't misinterpreting what you said, I was correcting the lie you posted about what I'VE been saying. A public school that charters a Troop is running a "no atheists allowed" youth group, and public schools can't do that.

No Ed, a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school running a youth group that says "no atheists allowed" (or "No Jews", or "No Catholics", etc).

Ed, this really IS about the first amendment. The US government can't discriminate against atheists, and that's why the government can't charter BSA units.

How do you know my sights aren't set on Head Start in churches? Do these churches refuse their government-financed services to atheists? And Ed is genuinely stupid. I'm not one of those types who thinks everyone is somehow magically equal in the intelligence department. Some people really ARE less intelligent.

Oh, you mean the molester, Ed? He's a Mormon and had a fiancee at the time he was molesting Scouts. Now he's married and out of jail (he only got 150 days). It isn't hard to google for "Brad Stowell" and Scouts. You'd find out even the local LDS bishop knew about Stowell's past abuse, and did nothing about his working with kids at a Scout camp. So your dishonest attempt to try to blame atheists just blew up in your face. Blame the Mormon church and the BSA, both of which were informed many times about this creep - and did nothing for years.

Ed writes: What you fail to realize Merlyn is I never stated those lawsuits were brought by atheists. I didn't say you stated that those lawsuits were brought by atheists, I said you didn't seem to realize that a Catholic and Mormon family brought the football lawsuit. And you also fail to realize my rights are the same as yours. No, I'm the one who realizes that public schools can't own & operate youth groups that would exclude kids who share your religious beliefs or share the lack of mine. You seem to think public schools COULD do so. You seems to want special rights for atheists! Where? Oh, you mean those court cases you referred to - the ones brought by other Christians? Those special rights? Hmm, how do court cases brought by Christians create special rights for atheists? Or are you talking about other "special rights" that you haven't discussed yet? But that along with my other question is something you refuse to address. Ed, you are geniunely too dumb to understand legal arguments.

Which is why I said "half a dozen BSA officials".