Merlyn_LeRoy

Adam Schwartz told me that about 1,200 BSA units were chartered by the military. There are about 8,200 others chartered by public schools, etc. which will almost certainly be the target of lawsuits if they aren't also dropped. And as far as the "equal access", depending on what military policy you read, all outside organizations on military bases are prohibited from practicing various sorts of discrimination, including religious and racial discrimination. If the military allows the Scouts in, they'll also have to allow e.g. the KKK in. We'll see what happens.

Yes, how diabolical for the ACLU to hold the US military to the constitution and treat everyone equally, regardless of their religious views. I can see how such a view would be unpopular with some of the people here.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17023&c=141 CHICAGO - In response to a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, the Defense Department today agreed to end direct sponsorship of hundreds of Boy Scout units, which require members to swear religious oaths, on military facilities across the United States and overseas. "If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz of the ACLU of Illinois. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination." Previously, Defense Department units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs, which exclude youths who do not believe in God. Additionally, the Boy Scouts of America requires troop and pack leaders, in this case government employees, to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not wish to swear a religious oath, and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination. Today's settlement addresses a major portion of a lawsuit first filed in 1999. In that lawsuit, the ACLU of Illinois challenged the use of public funds by the Chicago Public Schools, the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support Boy Scout troops. The Chicago Public Schools previously entered into a settlement agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Under the terms of today's settlement, the Defense Department has 60 days to issue a statement to U.S. defense facilities and military bases across the world making clear that Defense officials may not sponsor Boy Scout organizations. The settlement, however, does not prohibit off-duty government employees from sponsoring Boy Scout troops on their own time. The Boy Scouts will still also have access to any military facilities that are currently made available to other non-governmental organizations. "It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters of the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin who assisted the ACLU of Illinois in the lawsuit. The federal court in Chicago still must decide whether the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development can spend millions of taxpayer dollars to support Boy Scout units that practice religious discrimination and require religious oaths. The ACLU of Illinois has raised concern, for example, about the Pentagon's handpicking the Boy Scouts of America - and no other organization - for the expenditure of an average of $2 million each year to support the national Boy Scout Jamboree. A decision on this and other issues is pending. The agreement was presented to U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning. In addition to Peters, Laura Friedel and David Scott of Schiff Hardin are also assisting the ACLU of Illinois in the case. ------------------- In conjunction with this, Scouting For All is pressing for all other government agencies that charter discriminatory Boy Scout units (public schools, police departments, etc) to likewise end their sponsorship of about 8,200 Packs and Troops (see http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop for lists by state)

Both Fred and Bob can't understand principles. They defend the BSA's right to discriminate, yet turn a blind eye when public schools practice discrimination by chartering Packs. Yes, I know that isn't what the proposed regulations are about; if either of you would read what I write, you'd know that I already knew that. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of principles.

Fred Goodwin writes: Are atheists in Blattman Elementary being treated equally when the school itself runs a Cub Pack that excludes atheists? If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you form a group of atheist kids that excludes Believers, and ask a school to give you a meeting room? If they do, then everyone is being fairly and equally. No, they wouldn't be treated equally. To be treated equally, the SCHOOL would have to "own and operate" another student group that only allows atheists. After all, right now, they "own and operate" a youth group that only allows theists. You're comparing apples and oranges, and I see that all the time in this forum. It's like people are too stupid to understand the difference between a school allowing discriminatory outside organizations to use rooms, versus a school running such a discriminatory organization itself. Do you think Blattman Elementary would agree to "own and operate" a youth group that only allows atheists? Or that excludes Jews? Or that only allows Catholics?

Fred Goodwin writes: Again, whether or not you or I see a problem with that is irrelevant to the rules under consideration. I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about being treated equally (something you've also been talking about). Are atheists in Blattman Elementary being treated equally when the school itself runs a Cub Pack that excludes atheists? Your definition of equality comes from Animal Farm, where some people are more equal than others.

Fred Goodwin writes: Agreed, but that's not the issue. The issue is, that Scouts should have the same rights of access to the school (and to the kids) as any other non-profit group. It doesn't matter who the CO is. Hey Fred, do you think that a public school like Blattman Elementary can "own and operate" Pack 2003, and exclude boys who want to join who are atheists? That's your Pack. Do you see nothing illegal about a public school running a youth group that practices religious discrimination?

I missed about 30 volunteer fire departments; I'd go after those after the government charters are eliminated.

I had already removed PTAs/PTOs; that eliminated about 2,200 Packs. Which two schools should I remove? I'd like my list to be accurate. And you can spot check schools outside your area by clicking on the links and looking up the school - most seem to be public schools. My figures aren't too different from this Boston Phoenix article that quotes 1998 BSA charter partners broken down by category, including public schools and PTAs (listed separately). That 1998 list has 1,965 PTA charters and 10,113 public school charters. Fewer public schools, but a long way from zero. I'm working on Boy Scout Troops now, there seem to be about 2,500-3,000 of those chartered by various government agencies.

My source is an official BSA website; their information checks out (I've done a few spot checks), and it all seems to be current. The total number of Packs I found was 48,430, which seems to be about 90% of all Packs (figures from 2003 report a total of 53,380 Packs that year); it's possible I've missed a few and/or the BSA database doesn't have all the Packs in it yet. And Ed, you've already demonstrated that you don't understand the first amendment, so I'm not going to bother to try and explain it to you.

Hunt, I've done some recent work on this, and here's a list of 5,848 Cub Scout Packs chartered to government agencies: http://www.visi.com/~westley/bsa Feel free to send me any corrections; yes, it IS a big problem, and there are important principles at stake. And it IS a widespread problem.

You didn't quote what I was replying to... NJCubScouter had written this: "...The list of characteristics that REQUIRE exclusion also is very short; the only ones I can think of right now are (1) criminals (including those who have committed crimes against children; and (2) gays. " It doesn't look like criminals are required to be excluded, since there exists a BSA program that doesn't exclude them. I was just correcting his assertion that criminals are automatically excluded. Now, I don't think BSA values should be taught to anyone, since at the moment, their "values" are rife with hypocrisy and dishonesty. But that wasn't why I quoted that article.

All things must conform to that Law or become extinct. How many homosexual animals exist as a species, none. They would be unable to reproduce, so the trait of same sex mating deviates from Natural Law, i.e., those who do so are deviants. Looks like nature and the American Museum of Natural History disagrees with you: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Unisexual_Whiptail_Lizards/lizards.html?50 And the National Academy of Sciences notes that females still go through similar mating rituals (with another female): http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387177

Atheists, of course, NJCubScouter. Oh, and you'd better cross off "criminals" from that list; here's an AP story from last month: http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/9520769.htm Prisoners Take Boy Scout Oath Behind Bars BRETT BARROUQUERE Associated Press LA GRANGE, Ky. - Robert Jackson stood with the two dozen other members of Boy Scout Troop 825, raised his right hand in the traditional Boy Scout sign, and took the oath to do his best for God and country. Unlike other scouts, Jackson and members of his troop aren't allowed to earn merit badges through mastering camping and other outdoor skills. That's because they are prison inmates. "We're trying to teach more long-term planning, how to live when they get out," said Mike Pitzer, who serves as adviser and scout master to the troop at the Kentucky State Reformatory. The inmates are part of a rehabilitation program for emotionally and mentally disturbed prisoners serving time for everything from murder to sex crimes. ...

Hunt writes: Merlyn, is the Metro Deaf School in the district where you live and pay taxes? Did you read the link I posted? It's a state charter school, it doesn't have its own school district, it gets money from the state of Minnesota (and yes, I'm a Minnesota taxpayer) and from the school districts its students come from. You don't say that it is, and I don't think we can assume it is. I can. Their web page states (and I quoted that part) that the state funds their school. Do any students from your district attend the school? I don't know; my zip code is 55105 and the school is 55107, so it's possible; however, I pay MN state taxes, and the school is supported by state tax money, so that already answers your question about my taxes going to this school. And if the School does charter a scouting unit, does it budget any money to support the unit? How much? Irrelevant to the legal issues. A public school in Minnesota can't exclude students from their programs based on religion, according to MN statute 363A.13. Whether the school budgets any money for it or not doesn't exempt it from that. Second, where is your evidence that BSA continues to grant new charters to public schools in any significant numbers (or any numbers at all). I would think the BSA would be encouraging those units to be sponsored by PTAs. I've already shown you the Cambridge-Isanti Venture Crew, granted a charter after the Dale decision. There's another MN school in Monticello with a Venture Crew, patterned after the CIHS program (when it still existed). I find new BSA charters to schools and government agencies mentioned quite often, so they're still obviously doing it.

Hunt writes: Merlyn, do you have proof that "thousands" of Scouting units are chartered by the schools themselves? The BSA has become much more closed-mouthed about its membership breakdown since the Dale decision; in 2000, while the BSA was defending its right to discriminate, public schools chartered discriminatory units with over 360,000 members according to their own published figures. See e.g. http://www.umcscouting.org/BSA/BSA/bsa_top_30_chartered_organizatio.htm I just tried calling BSA National; everyone in the registration department is at some kind of meeting today, so I'll see if I can get more current numbers on Monday. If you're including units chartered by PTAs, I think your argument is significantly weakened. Those are listed separately; in the 2000 membership figures, PTAs were listed as chartering units with about 85,000 members. The fact that you continually mention only a few school districts suggests to me that you may not have the actual facts to back up your assertions. I only have details on a few actual examples; it's also a rapidly moving target, since a lot of units chartered to public schools disappear after a few years, and new one keep popping up (because the BSA doesn't refuse to charter discriminatory BSA units to government agencies). Furthermore, are there scouting units chartered by public schools in the school district where you live--where you pay taxes? Metro Deaf School in St. Paul is a public school that gets funding from the state of Minnesota and the school districts of its students (http://www.metrodeafschool.org/page15.html , "The key sources of funding for the school are the State and the resident school districts from which its students come"), and I called registration at the Indianhead council and asked them who chartered Pack 20 at Metro Deaf School, and they told me the school itself chartered it. Do you think atheist or gay students in this school can join the school's Cub Scout Pack? Want to call the Indianhead council and try to get a straight "yes" or "no" out of them with that question?

No Ed, but you can't understand. It isn't discrimination to tell public schools that they can't discriminate, and public schools can't teach that believing in gods is preferable to not believing in gods.

silver-shark writes: Additionally, Merlyn asks if we would be offended by a group sponsored by a public school, that didn't allow Jews into it. As long as a group of Jewish students have the ability to have a group that excludes Christians, if they so desire, why would it matter to me at all. But they don't; I'm not talking about a situation where students can create their own groups, I'm talking about a situation where the school itself is running a youth group. Look at the Cambridge-Isanti program - if you wanted to join the school's theatre group, that meant joining the Venture Crew - therefor, no gays or atheists allowed in the school's theatre group. Same for their pottery class, book club, dance club, water polo, etc. All of these closed to gays and atheists because they couldn't join the school's Venture Crew, because all of these were done under their Venturing program. We won't have TRUE rreligious freedom until all groups are allowed to practice their faith anytime and anywhere. And we also won't have true religious freedom until all public schools stop owning and operating Scout units that exclude their own students for not having the "right" religious views. And Hunt, there are still thousands of public schools running Scout units; it's not "one or two examples", it's a significant fraction of the number of total Scout units, with hundreds of thousands of members.

You know, that makes as much sense as someone telling you that you're really mad at Zeus. Telling an atheist that he's "mad at god" just shows that you don't respect atheists. And is it really hard to figure out why I'm angry with a dishonest organization that tries (and often succeeds) in getting government agencies to run BSA units that exclude atheists? If the BSA excluded Jews, would you criticize a Jew who railed against the BSA and considered them dishonest for having public schools run their "no Jews allowed" groups? I've noticed nobody has tried to refute the specific statements I've made about the Cambridge-Isanti High School; does anyone think it was legal for the CIHS to sponsor a Venture Crew? Does anyone think the national BSA would allow atheist and gay CIHS students to join this Crew? Does anyone think the BSA has been honest in this case? Why'd they issue a Venturing Crew charter to a public school, anyway - does the BSA think public schools in Minnesota can ignore the law on the BSA's behalf?

DeMann, check this out: every public school has to treat all its students equally on the basis of their religious views. So when the BSA deceives public schools into chartering their private discriminatory clubs, they're being dishonest. You have no problem being part of a dishonest organization?

Your description is a bit hard to follow; if a new Venture Crew is formed chartered by a local fishing club, what is the teacher an "advisor" of? That sounds like a school position and not a Crew position. A Venture Crew chartered by an outside group should be treated the same as any other outside group; do all outside groups get a schoolteacher as an advisor? Can any outside group meet at that school? And, of course, do the kids who want to form a Venture Crew realize that gay and atheist kids will not be allowed to join, even if all the members want to let them in?

How open-minded of you, Trail Pounder. No comment on how the BSA deliberately tried to get a public school to discriminate against atheist and gay students in a public high school, but I suppose they just don't matter in your world. I would like nothing better than to leave the BSA alone, but first the BSA has to: 1) stop leeching off my taxes by continuing to issue charters to government agencies 2) stop misrepresenting the BSA as "for all boys" when it clearly excludes atheists 3) stop teaching "ethics" to atheist students via their Learning for Life program 4) stop leeching off my taxes with $1/year no-bid leases 5) stop leeching off my taxes by fraudulently applying for HUD grants for their Scoutreach program ...and that only covers the more egregious things, some of which are actual crimes. I notice you didn't dispute any of my examples, you only want to shut me up -- but that doesn't make the issues disappear. "Be Unprepared" could be your motto. What do you think should have been done in the Cambridge-Isanti situation? Just hope a lawsuit never happens? Isn't someone obviously deceiving the public when a public school ends up running a youth organization that it thinks is not discriminatory, when it really is?

Eamonn writes: I am trying to work out how the BSA issuing charters to government agencies is the fault of the BSA? To my very simple way of thinking: We (The BSA) have a program which we allow other groups to use if they acknowledge that they have the same values that we do. And the BSA (and you, I would hope) know that other groups like government agencies can't discriminate against people based on their religious views. The values of the BSA are well known. We offer it and it is their choice if they want to take it or leave it. Even if you know you are offering it to a group that cannot, legally, exclude people based on their religious views? About "the values of the BSA are well known", I have to disagree. I've seen too many court records and talked to too many people who actually believe that the Boy Scouts will allow their special Pack or Crew to have atheist and/or gay members. I've talked to the principal of Cambridge-Isanti High School, Craig Paulson, who is not only the principal, but used to be the Chair of the Three Rivers District in the Viking Council; HE thought they had some "special arrangement" with the BSA so atheists could join his school's Venture Crew. Of course, there WAS no such special arrangement. I called the BSA many times to get a straight answer to my question of whether atheists could join this Venture Crew. I called the Viking council and got no clear answers; I called BSA national and kept getting referred to different people. Finally, David Park in the BSA legal department gave me the only answer I ever got to my question. Of course, it was no, atheists CAN'T join a Venture Crew, even one chartered by a public school, even one where it would be a crime to exclude them, even one where the principal didn't want to discriminate, the council didn't want to discriminate, and the charter partner (school dist. 911) didn't want to discriminate, it didn't matter. Now, if an atheist or gay student at a public high school was thrown out of that school's Venture Crew for being an atheist or gay, that's a violation of Minnesota statute 363A.13 The school is breaking the law at that point, and any student would have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit against the school and the BSA (the BSA would be in violation of 363A.14, where it is a crime to coerce or attempt to coerce a public educational institution to discriminate on these grounds; the BSA is attempting to have the school practice discrimination by deceptively issuing a Venturing charter to a public school without informing the school that atheists and gays can't join). The principal knew at the outset that his school can't practice discrimination, and, being chair of a BSA council, I would expect HIM to at least know the rules, but he was given the impression by his OWN BSA COUNCIL that there was some "special" arrangement in place that would allow atheists and gays to join. But neither he nor the superintendent was able to come up with anything, and they had no choice but to drop the Venture Crew. Check it all out yourself (watch the wrap): Principal Craig Paulson: http://www.cambridge.k12.mn.us/~administration/paulson.html An archive.org snapshot from May 9, 2003 of the old 3 Rivers District page: http://web.archive.org/web/20030509194734/http://www.vikingbsa.org/Districts/ThreeRivers/Leadership.html The archive doesn't have a copy of his picture, but notice his work phone number and email are Principal Craig Paulson. Here's a news article about the Venture Crew: http://www.isanticountynews.com/2003/february/4venturing.html Here's a story on the school board, which mentions OKing the above charter (very bottom): http://www.isanticountynews.com/2001/december/26911audit.html Notice this was a few months after the Dale decision. MN statutes: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/363A/13.html http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/363A/14.html Notice that a school-run Venture Crew chartered by public school district 911 is certainly one of the " services rendered thereby" of an "educational institution", and that it is explicitly illegal to discriminate on the basis of "creed, religion...sexual orientation" in any of those services, and that attempting to coerce someone into doing so is a crime under 363A.14 Either the BSA or the principal (also a former BSA official) is at fault here, and I don't see much difference which one it is. Someone on the BSA side had to deceive school district 911 into believing that having a school Venture Crew wouldn't run afoul of nondiscrimination laws that MN public schools must follow. So, yes, maybe I AM a little quick to call people "liars" when they misstate my position in support of such a loathsome, dishonest organization.

Hey Hunt, if I'm trying to conduct an argument with adrianvs, and he misrepresents my very thoughts and opinions on the subject of the argument, pointing out that he's lying about my position has to be part of my rebuttal, since I can't proceed until I correct his misrepresentations. Now, if someone genuinely misunderstands my position, I'll call it a mistake, but when someone states that my position is diametrically opposed to what I've publically stated many times (and other people don't seem to have a problem understanding my position), I have no qualms accusing that person of deliberate misrepresentation. Why is it impolite to call people liars, but not impolite to lie? For similar reasons, I regard the national office of the Boy Scouts of America to be a thoroughly dishonest organization, because they continue to issue charters to government agencies to run their "private, discriminatory" youth groups, even though they know government agencies can't legally do this. I've actually called their legal department, and they've told me that they expect public schools to exclude atheist students from school-chartered BSA Venture Crews (even though public schools can't do this). Are any BSA supporters disturbed by the BSA's attitude? By the way, did anyone notice (besides me) that Norwalk granted the permit?

Again, you're lying about what my opinions are: Two religious truths: 1. There is a God 2. There is a physical world. They are BOTH accepted and rejected by religions of the world. BOTH are religious points. YOU happen to believe in number 2, but not number 1. THEREFORE, you claim that groups which teach number 2 but not number 1 should receive direct government support. No, you're lying. I've never said groups that teach there is a physical world but not that there is a god should receive direct government support. I've never said the government SHOULD do that, and I disagree with your "poisoning the well" definitions in any case. Likewise, you consider groups that accept number 1 and/or disbelieve number 2 as unworthy of government support. Again, a lie; I've said that the government cannot legally and should not support groups that have religious requirements for membership. Groups that disagree with YOU on these religious principles are singled out while those that do not are not singled out. You expect the government to show favor to YOUR religous beliefs by giving them direct support without allowing such support to be given to groups which disagree with YOU. Only if the government subscribes to your ridiculous equivocations, which, fortunately, it doesn't appear to do. That is what I mean by assuming that your philosophical and religious truths have more weight (merit, importance, whatever) before the law (government, whatever) than other persons'. I'm not assuming that; that's a conclusion from actual observations of the Physical World [TM]: I don't know of any court cases prohibiting government support of organizations that assume the physical world exists because the court found that to be a religious position; I know of court cases prohibiting government support of organizations that assume a god exists because the court DID find that to be a religious position (the Balboa Park case would be such an example, I'd say). If you can find an actual court case supporting your contention that assuming the physical world exists constitutes a religious position, go ahead and cite them. Until then, you seem to be ignoring the physical world, or at least that subset of the physical world which constitutes US court proceedings.