Merlyn_LeRoy

Just the children...

The continued political attacks are fallout from the BSA's original decision to keep certain people out. It wasn't particularly popular back then, and even less popular now.

The CO didn't throw out Dale, that was done at the council level. If it had been left up to the CO, Dale wouldn't have been kicked out. BTW, here's another perspective: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/03/the-boy-scouts-image-problem.html

Actually, the BSA's religious discrimination didn't go on for 80 years, as they re-admitted Paul Trout in 1985 after public uproar over kicking him out. Sometime after that, the BSA decided defrauding public schools was the way to go. You have something against following the constitution, Scouter99?

No more off-topic than AZMike's rant - and I'll note that he seems to have been perfectly OK with the BSA taking Disney's money, he only complains about Disney when they stopped giving. I guess he was willing to overlook it as long as it paid off.

Is that anything like the BSA's fraud in having had about 10,000 public schools as chartering partners and expecting them to unlawfully practice religious discrimination?

Huzzar, you might want to know that words can mean more than one thing: b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

It's hard to see an organization that has 70+ percent of the units under faith based organizations not having a faith component. That isn't the criterion; it's whether an organization is considered a "religious organization" by the California judicial system. Also, back when the exemption for the BSA was written, the BSA chartered units to public schools, which would preclude the BSA from being considered a religious organization, at least back then. Interesting how BSA can not be viewed as a faith based or at least faith supporting organization. Nobody's been saying that.

It doesn't look like the California judicial system considers the BSA to fall under their religious organization exemption, as they added the nonprofit youth organization exemption to cover the BSA in 1996, even though the religious organization exemption already existed.

When you go to the website, only lawyers can be full members, It is discriminatory. Yeah. So? If religious organizations are included then judges should not belong to religious groups either including atheist groups. Well, if you had bothered to read, the recommendation is to keep the exemption for religious groups.

"Canon 2C prohibits a judge from holding membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, but contains exceptions for religious, military, and nonprofit youth organizations. The committee proposes retaining the exception for religious organizations" Equivocating on the word "discriminate" doesn't work. Judges can be members of the ABA because the ABA doesn't practice invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Anyone can be a member: http://www.americanbar.org/membership/faq.html#who_can_join The government of California is determining what kinds of discrimination is acceptable and which is not. Yeah. So?

When we can't discuss tough issues civilly without tossing around loaded terms, grouping large swaths of people together based on stereotypes and incorrect perceptions then progress isn't going to be made. Hey, call me when the BSA stops "grouping large swaths of people together based on stereotypes and incorrect perceptions".

*edit*

Merlyn ... You're the Stalin of the web era. You accuse others of treachery when you can't live side by side with those who disagree with you. No Fred, you're the Hitler of scouter.com Who have I accused of treason? I just accuse you of being bigoted. You know different words mean different things, don't you? Tolerance is a two sided street and you throw accusations cheap and quick because I think differently than you. Yeah, like when I accused you of "ugly destructive hate" -- oh wait, that was you, about me. But since you're a hypocrite, it's OK for you to do it against me, but not vice-versa. BSA should remove barriers to homosexuals. Fine. That's a good idea because even though the large majority of faiths do not support it, there is not a 100% consensus. Let each charter org decide. But my charter org does not agree with it and I don't either. So don't force us to adopt your beliefs. Are you totally insane? First, I'm NOT trying to force you to adopt my beliefs. Second, even if I was attempting to do that, I couldn't. I can't force the BSA to do anything, except when they blatantly break the law, and even then, I needed an assist from the ACLU. I don't agree with you. Get over it and move on. Look, hypocrite, you weren't even on my radar until you decide to vomit out "ugly destructive hate that Merlyn LeRoy shows". You are the one who needs to "get over it". Merlyn ... you are a hater and just too intense on your position to realize it. Because of the way I keep jumping into conversations and accuse you of "ugly destructive hate" -- oh wait, that's still you doing that, not me.

How is asking the BSA to live up to it's stated values ("...is completely nonsectarian...", Reverent - "...shows respect for other faiths...") hate? Who said that? The BSA foments hatred of atheists by its actions. It states that atheists cannot be "the best kinds of citizens" for one example.

Fred, you really exemplify the kind of hatred the BSA foments in its members. Allow gay members to join. Then we don't discriminate. Wrong. The BSA still discriminates on the basis of religion and sex. Again it only becomes an issue when the purpose of one organization is used to advocate for another purpose ... like Merlyn keeps doing. How do I do that? All I do is criticize bigoted fools like yourself.

First, the BSA's religious discrimination would still conflict with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, so simply removing the gay ban won't be sufficient. Second, the suggestion to remove youth groups (and military organizations) from the list exceptions was done internally by the state supreme court's own advisory committee. I doubt they want to "destroy" the BSA.

Of course it would stand up in court -- right now the only thing keeping BSA membership is a special rule exempting youth groups, so removing that exemption is all it would take.

Reflecting badly has been the standard for a long time; it's only special exemptions carved out for "youth groups" (read: Boy Scouts) that has been holding this off.

The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.

"The BSA is quite upfront in saying atheism is a no." Unfortunately, they are also quite upfront in saying agnosticism is a no: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/boy-scouts-will-not-employ-atheists-agnostics-known-or-avowe Yet plenty of believers of various religions will also identify as agnostic, because many people have a much better idea what "agnostic" means than the BSA. But that's what happens when you make up rules using words you don't understand.

"Agnostic is a knowledge based understanding of God" No, that's gnostic, from "gnosis". Agnostic is the opposite due to the a- prefix, meaning "not". Huxley coined the word, and here's what he said it meant: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Your statement is a non-sequitur. The BSA has stated that agnostics can't be members, for example.

And what, exactly, did he do to mislead anyone? As part of that, what religious beliefs are required? Can a scout ever voice any doubt about his own beliefs? If so, how much and for how long?

"I hate to nitpick but there is a difference between athiest and agnostic, so I doubt that kid is both." Most atheists are both. Many believers are also theist and agnostic. "They may think they're athiest if they don't believe in, for example, the biblical definition of God. But they may still believe in something, be it a higher power that is defined in another religion or something that they can't quite put their finger on. It could even be just a general sense of spirituality, a closeness with nature, or a belief in some general essence greater than ourselves. None of which defines them as being athiest. " Most of what you've listed aren't incompatible with atheism, either. "Tough to deny anyone advancement or membership based on what could very often be just teenage confusion and questioning." The entire requirement is idiotic and ridiculously badly defined.