Merlyn_LeRoy

CubsRgr8 writes: I checked out the S4A link Merlyn posted and found it isn't accurate. For example, University School of Milwaukee is not a public school, it is a very private school (http://www.usm.k12.wi.us/). This type of sloppy record keeping by S4A certainly causes me to question the accuracy of what they post, and the integrity of their motives. If you'd read the cover page, you'll notice it says "NOTE: these lists were generated by computer and corrected by hand, so a few of the charters listed may actually be private schools or groups. Please send us any corrections, additions, or deletions." It certainly isn't obvious that University School of Milwaukee is a private school, and no, I'm not going to check 8,200 schools myself. I have deleted those entries. If you find any others that shouldn't be on the list, please let me know and I'll delete them, too. And it hasn't been tested in courts whether a school that consistently applies a nondiscrimation policy to ALL outside groups can or can't exclude Boy Scouts by treating them the same as any other outside group. Schools can allow all outside groups, they can exclude all outside groups, but the case of a consistently applied nondiscrimination requirement to all outside groups hasn't come up that I'm aware of, though the recent decision to allow schools to bar military recruiters is pretty close.

EagleInKY writes: If the Jewish faith stood for something that was in total opposition of what the program represented, and by admitting them they would be detracting from the program, then they would have every right to exclude them. Not public schools and police departments. adrianvs, public schools can't practice religious discrimination. I don't know of any public schools that exclude nihilists for being nihilists from a school organization, and I don't know of any reason why a public school would want to do so. Meanwhile, in the real world where I happen to live, thousands of public schools are expected to exclude atheists from Scout units the schools own & operate. And yes, I do have a problem with that.

cliffgolden writes: >>>>>Merlyn writes I didn't ask you to "relate", I asked you how good a youth program would have to be in order for you to turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination against Jews. >>>>> If a Catholic Chapel on a military base offered a youth program for the children of their parish, I would have no problem with that. Well, that isn't the question I was asking. How about a program that admits all kids, except Jewish kids, owned & operated by public schools and police departments? A program which says Jewish members can't be the best kinds of citizens?

Eagledad writes: I can't relate because Scouting is based from moral strength. Folks accept the scouting program because character is based from moral ideals. Moral ideals are based from religious principles. Atheist morals are based from what? I didn't ask you to "relate", I asked you how good a youth program would have to be in order for you to turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination against Jews. If it was a really, really, really good program for (non-Jewish) kids, would that be enough for you to ignore public schools and police departments operating such youth groups that turn away Jews? Don't dodge the question, answer it. How good would it need to be for you to ignore the civil rights of Jews? You seem to have no problem ignoring the civil rights of atheists.

cliffgolden writes: If those weren't your only two choices, what would you rather do? Realistically, the two choices are more along the lines of the BSA either dropping their discriminatory membership requirements, or losing all government sponsorship. I'd prefer the former, but it may well end up being the latter. Since the BSA isn't changing, it's time to go after the government sponsorship using legal action, since the government can't practice such discrimination. The ACLU went after the city of Chicago a few years back, and that pretty much ended that type of municipal sponsorship. Only in Chicago. That's why I'm still working with various state ACLUs to stop all the other government sponsorship that still exists. Exploring was absorbed into Learning for Life for those municipal sponsored units. Yes; as a direct result of the ACLU legal action, Exploring has been open to atheists and gays for about five years now (the split was announced a week after Chicago settled). Before that, there were e.g. Police Explorer units that were officially "no atheists allowed", and the BSA actually expected police departments to break the law and exclude atheists (as the Rick Sherman case showed; the police department had to drop their Explorer Post when the BSA refused to admit Rick because he was an atheist). The DOD is now stopping the direct sponsorship of units. Also due to the same Illinois ACLU; notice the Boy Scouts haven't been voluntarily ending these relationships, even though that would be the honest thing to do. I don't know of any public schools sponsoring units in my local area. PTA's used to, but not anymore. Where are you located? I've found public school charters in all 50 states; see http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop if you want to look it up yourself. The BSA, through Learning for Life, does serve youth that are atheist. If you were able to kill off the BSA, you would be hurting atheist children as well as believers. As I explained to OGE, I don't think the current BSA offers anything worthwhile to atheist youth. It would be better to find a similar program that isn't owned by a parent company that denegrates atheists.

Its trail day, it still wouldn't work, because a public school can't own and operate a religiously discriminatory group, even if it costs nothing to do so. The BSA says the charter partner owns and operates the unit, and is responsible for selecting the leadership of the group. Public schools can't fulfill that requirement, because part of selecting leadership is determining if the person meets the BSA's religious requirements. OGE, there are still other issues; for example, the Boy Scouts, while being an organization that discriminates against atheists, teaches that atheist members can't be the best kinds of citizens, and has thousands of public schools currently running their "private" no-atheists-allowed youth groups, also teaches schoolkids (including atheist schoolkids) through their Learning for Life program how to make ethical decisions. I do not consider the BSA to be an ethical organization any longer, and I certainly object to a subsidiary of an organization that discriminates against atheists to have programs in public schools that pretend to teach ethics. Freemasons exclude atheists, and I only argue with freemasons when I notice one defaming atheists, because freemasons (as far as I know) do it with their own money, and don't try to teach ethics in public schools.

Eagledad writes: Second, no fair minded person is so willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. Let me ask you, how good would a youth group have to be for you to turn a blind eye to government agencies running these youth groups if anyone could join as long as they weren't Jewish? And this youth group's "declaration of religious principle" said that Jewish members couldn't be the best kinds of citizens? Would you be willing to have your local police department run such a group? Mine does, if you change Jew to atheist. So how good would such a youth group have to be for you to support your local police running one?

SemperParatus writes: So...if I understand this organization, membership is not allowed to a person that believes in a supreme being because that would not be in agreement with its Statement of Principles. Further, because of the tax deductibility of dues and donations (and presumably the nontaxability of the organization's income) this organization is essentially receiving a government subsidy. Now, you want to try and explain how that would be any different than the boy scouts restricting membership and receiving governmental support? Because the Boy Scouts' governmental support that I am talking about is not non-profit status (which any group can get, regardless of their religious views) but things like public schools owning & operating Cub Scout Packs (even though public schools can't discriminate on the basis of religion), and HUD grants (which specifically require not discriminating on the basis of religion, yet the BSA uses them for their discriminatory programs). If you'd like to propose that all non-profits pay taxes (including churches), fine by me; meanwhile, I'm going to focus on government agencies that discriminate against atheists by chartering BSA units.

cajuncody writes: What really irks me is that people like you "say" we are trying to force our religion on you when in fact you are trying to force your non religion on the rest of us. How so? Some specific examples from the real world would be helpful. We can't have any religious objects on display in public places but isn't that basically allowing you to display your "non god". No, having NO objects on display says nothing. A sign saying "gods are myths" would be advancing the idea that gods are myths. Do you complain about math courses that teach 2 + 3 = 5 without mentioning gods as basically stating that gods don't exist? Besides, your premise is false; you CAN have religious objects on display in public places; churches, for example, are typically in public places and they can put up religious objects. Perhaps you meant "public property", but you'd still be wrong, as public forums are public property where anyone is welcome to put up various signs & displays (usually for a limited time so everyone has opportunities to use it). Of course, atheists would have equal access to this forum, so you can end up with both religious and atheistic displays, as in Madison, Wisconsin. Perhaps you're simply complaining that the government doesn't promote your particular religious view while excluding other people's views. That's the first amendment for ya. You see it as there is no God so we shouldn't see any signs of Him in our court houses but that just means that we have to look at "objects " of your religion. We certainly shouldn't have government officials erecting signs promoting their view of religion in courthouses, that's a pretty blatant violation of the first amendment. And I have no idea what '"objects" of my religion' is supposed to refer to; I don't HAVE a religion (though some atheists do). It seems to me that you are violating my civil rights. How so? Be specific, and keep in mind that I have exactly the same civil rights as you. Civil rights are not determined by majorities or popularity. Scouts is not out there trying to convert people, we are simply an organazation with membership requirements. If you don't want to join a religious organazation then go find a chess club. Why are thousands of public schools running your "private, discriminatory" groups? If you want to be a religious organization, don't have public schools as charter partners.

Eagledad writes: So it's fair to say you really don't have a clue about the program and how it contributes to our youth and society. No, it wouldn't be fair to say that. If you were personally given the ability to kill the BSA completely or leave it alone as it is presently, what would choose? If those are my ONLY to choices, I'd have to kill it, because currently the federal and state governments are violating the rights of atheists by having government agencies run Boy Scout units that unlawfully practice religious discrimination, which is unconstitutional. Religious civil rights are too important to violate so casually.

Correct, though as an atheist I can't join Boy Scouts anyway (not in the US, at least).

I was a cub scout about 35 years ago, and I'm involved with Scouting For All, which is involved in Scouting to the extent that SFA advocates that the BSA change its discriminatory policies.

Aside from usenet, most other scout forums I've seen are either on other topics, or are a general topic but exclude the 3 Gs, like scouts-l. But sure, send me a list (or why not post it, I'm sure other people would like to see it), thanks.

http://www2.townonline.com/braintree/opinion/view.bg?articleid=145041 In the past, I've admired the work of the Boy Scouts of America. Shaping the character of boys by doing and earning merit badges seemed like a good idea. I am all for teaching kids the values of trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courteousness, kindness, cheerfulness, bravery, and cleanliness. "Obedience" is in their list, but I've never thought its inclusion was a good idea. Obedience is a trait that seems un-American and more appropriate to Nazi youth or dogs. For "obedience," I would substitute one or more of the following admirable character traits: forgiveness, honesty, and open-mindedness. These character traits are not even a part of the "Scout Law," but kids need to practice them early. I also have misgivings about "reverent," which is on their list. Although I believe it is important to have deep respect, tinged with awe (a dictionary definition of reverence) for some central value (a painter should be reverent about his art, a mother about her child), the broad dictionary definition of reverent is unacceptable to the current Boy Scout leadership. For them, you cannot be reverent unless you really do believe in their God. Since they cannot crawl inside a youngster's mind to verify whether his belief is genuine and developed, this Scout law comes down to the requirement that young scouts must say they believe in God even if they have doubts or are confused. A Seattle-area Eagle Scout named Darrell Lambert had been in the scouts since the age of nine. At 14 and in high school, he found that he could no longer accept the notion of God and made no effort to hide his doubts. (Give him another merit badge for honesty.) The Scout organization allowed him to stay in the scouts as an active volunteer until he was a freshman in college. Then they threw him out of the Scouts for being unable to honestly say he believed in God. The reason I have been thinking through this broad and narrow definition of reverence is that I received a holiday donation plea from an executive of the Boy Scouts of America. When I first saw his letter, I expected that it would be a simple request to help continue the good things that scouting can do for boys. Instead, the letter contained the same smug ideological claptrap I encountered in the "culture wars" of the last election. The letter begins, "Do you ever despair at what's happening in our society today? Or feel that the old-fashioned values of truth, honesty, and integrity are crumbling all around you? We know how you feel. It concerns us deeply, too." In the next paragraph, the letter says, "And, we are determined to stand strong against all pressures and any demands in the future that we become more 'politically correct.'" Note that the virtues he mentions as "crumbling" - truth, honesty, integrity - are not even a part of the Scout law. Moreover, this letter is itself an example of "crumbling" honesty. He self-righteously assumes his views are the moral high ground and proudly and glibly declares his strong intolerance for those who would disagree with him. He does this not by a fair argument, but by simply dismissing opposing views as "PC." *Far right propaganda also likes to mischaracterize its opponents as "relativists.") The opposite of absolutism and closed-mindedness is not PC or wishy-washy relativism. but thoughtful consideration of the other point of view. This is a prime feature of any free society that respects the rights of those who do not conform. Current scout leadership, as evidenced by this letter, is apparently not content shaping our children's character and behavior. They seem to insist on controlling the way they think and what they think. They are "preachers" in the worse sense. Their intent is to proselytize, not simply inform or educate. For them, open-mindedness is a part of the devil's work. These attitudes are not good for our kids, nor are they good for our country. Oddly enough, there is appreciation for open-mindedness expressed in the Official Boy Scout Handbook. In one section it reads, "All your life you will be with people of different faiths and customs. The men who founded the United States of America gave us a heritage of religious freedom. It is our duty to respect others whose religion may differ from ours, even though we do not agree with them . . . You know that each person is an individual with ideas and ways of his own. To be a real friend, you must accept the other person as he is, show interest in him, and respect his differences . . .." I want to give to the Boy Scouts, but I am uncomfortable supporting an organization whose leaders (like many church leaders) refuse to honor open-mindedness as one of their operating virtues. Supporting them seems contrary to America's sacraments of freedom of thought and individual rights. You can't force someone to believe in God, and it is unfair to require it of a nine-year-old child who can barely get his mind around theological questions. Kids can learn to be admirable human beings without a theological requirement that may be impossible for them to honestly satisfy. They can build character by doing. Perhaps this year I'll give to the Girl Scouts. I understand they have not been taken over by the bigoted religious crusaders in our midst.

Uncleguinea writes: I also believe that you and your cause have come into conflict and have fought to take away some of my civil rights. Which civil rights would those be, again? I see you're quick to make vague accusations, but not specific charges. I'll just have to assume you were lying unless you can come up with real examples.

Uncleguinea writes: I also believe that you and your cause have come into conflict and have fought to take away some of my civil rights. Which civil rights would those be? Be specific. I called you stupid because: 1) first you asked why the military could discriminate against gays and people who don't meet their height and weight requirements, but not support the Boy Scouts' religious discrimination. 2) I explained that none of your examples are unlawful, but religious discrimination by the government IS unlawful. 3) You continued to carp about the ACLU suing to stop unlawful discrimination, but not uselessly suing to stop perfectly legal discrimination. That's why I said you seemed to be too stupid to be in the military. You don't win court cases by filing lawsuits against legal acts, but you don't seem to understand that simple concept.

Fighting discrimination against atheists is a mission of my life, certainly not the only one. You don't seem to think atheists have civil rights.

Fred, what I find hypocritical is your whining while your discriminatory Cub Scout pack is sponsored by a public school. The Boy Scouts won the Dale case and can discriminate in any way they choose. Congratulations. Government agencies like the US military and public schools can't practice such discrimination by sponsoring discriminatory Boy Scout packs and troops. If you want to avoid future "harassment", simply make sure your chartering organization can practice the kind of discrimination the Boy Scouts require them to. Otherwise, it simply will NOT stop, and it's not just the ACLU that you have to worry about. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and Lambda Legal are some other organizations that take a very dim view of government agencies discriminating against gays and/or atheists. If you want to avoid court cases, stop dishonestly chartering "private discriminatory" clubs to them.

cliffgolden writes: I believe the program in St Louis is probably a Learning for Life program. The St. Louis program is Classroom Scouting and Classroom Venturing, and neither Scouting nor Venturing are under L4L. I've called the St Louis council, and they seem to think there is something that needs to be "worked out" with the Special School District. If it was a L4L program, there wouldn't be any problem to work out. To give you an idea how clueless the higher-ups at the BSA are, when Learning for Life first started back in 1991 as an offshoot/replacement for their in-school scouting program, even though it was designed to be an in-school program, the BSA still tried to restrict leadership to heterosexual theists; see their Aug 14, 1991 position statement: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/untitled115.html Those restrictions didn't last.

"the military" does not have free speech rights, only individuals have rights; "the military" is a government agency.

"ceremonial deism" isn't ceremonial when it results in different treatment by an agent of the government; military bases can't justify it as "ceremonial" when it actually excludes people.

Ed, I've seen Buddhists say they are atheists, and I've seen chaplains say it's their duty to serve all military personnel, not just their denomination.

I had heard about Nixon affirming too, but the library of congress only indicates Pierce and Hoover as affirming: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html

Teddy Roosevelt. Also of note, Pierce and Hoover affirmed.

Chaplains are morale officers, and are assigned duties like grief counselling and suicide prevention. Also, some people, like Buddhists, can also be atheists. And BSA national is the one with the policy of throwing out atheists; it doesn't matter if the atheist is vocal about it or not. We have religious freedom in the US, and that means the government can't discriminate against you simply because your religious views are unpopular. The constitutional issue is government sponsorship of a religious discriminatory organization.