Merlyn_LeRoy

I didn't say that all scouts hate atheists, but that the BSA encourages hatred against atheists, and FOG exemplifies that. For example, there are plenty of posts by BSA members disparaging atheists in general, but few posts by other Scouts objecting to such wholesale insults against atheists. And it's obvious that FOG's insult about atheists drew no response, but MY remark about the BSA drew quick objections. And some of you still question why I don't want my own government to fund Scouting programs? Do you think it's OK with me for a program that breeds hatred against atheists to add injury to insult by using my tax money to pay for it?

Hunt, there's a lot more where that came from; the OBC is just one example. There's a current contract in Iowa for $43,000, paying for a "traditional scouting" program (which means no atheists or gays). And yes, Old Baldy is still trying to get more grants for their discriminatory program. Also check out http://xxx.infidels.org/~nap/bsa_government_grants.html

Zahnada, the reason I called Bob White a liar is because I've pointed out the Old Baldy grant to Bob before (back in 2003), so he KNOWS that the Old Baldy council got that government grant, yet when someone mentions the BSA "feeding at the public trough", Bob White again flatly states that the BSA gets no public money! See the old thread "ACLU sues Old Baldy council for fraudulent HUD grant"

I agree with Deloe, and I think the bigotry expressed by FOG illustrates how the Boy Scouts encourage hatred against atheists.

If you'll look at the services paid for by the grant, you'll see that they consist of: 1) going to schools 2) giving talks to urge boys to join Scouting 3) having boys join Scouting It wouldn't make much sense if you had to be a member of Boy Scouts in order to qualify for (2) and (3) above. However, (3) is one of the services paid for by the HUD grant, which requires that it be available to the boys regardless of creed; but if you don't hold the creed that god exists, you can't join.

Since you won't bother to actually FIND a government-funded program that only services at-risk black youth (and to be analogous to the BSA situation, NON-black youth who would otherwise be eligible would be refused these services), I'll just assume it's a figment of your imagination until shown an example.

Isn't it discriminatory to require that a group not discriminate in order to receive federal funds? Sure, in the sense of "discriminatory" meaning to distinguish between alternatives; it's legal for the government to put nondiscrimination requirements on HUD grants.

adrianvs writes: Ohhh... I get it now! Atheism is YOUR creed of choice, so there can be no publicly funded organizations that exclude them. But idealism is NOT YOUR creed of choice, so there is no problem funding organizations which exclude them. It's all really so very simple now.. No, you really don't get it. HUD grants can't be used to finance programs that exclude atheists. They can't be used to finance programs that exclude theists, either. Or polytheists. Or monotheists. Or Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. You might have some success arguing that "Idealism" a creed, and if you're successful, that would be included too. By the way, do you think the Old Baldy council was wrong in getting a HUD grant that required nondiscrimination on the basis of creed, and used that money to solicit membership in a youth program that excludes kids on the basis of creed?

First, "D'oh" on the principal/principle gaff. Second, different federal grants have different requirements. HUD Community Development Block Grants have many requirements, among them nondiscrimination requirements, which includes religion and creed. None of the services paid for by these grants can discriminate on the grounds of religion or creed. You can't refuse Jews for being Jews, you can't refuse trinitarians for being trinitarians, you can't require trinitarianism, you can't require monotheism, you can't require polytheism, you can't require theism, you can't require atheism. The Boy Scouts used one of these grants to solicit and get members in a youth group that excludes atheists, which is not only dishonest, but illegal. Now, if you can find an organization that: 1) has applied for and received a HUD grant with such nondiscrimination requirements, and 2) requires some or all beneficiaries of this HUD-financed program to sign a statement that they believe in the objective reality of the physical world, then we'd have an actual test case and find out. However, I don't know of any organization that does this; perhaps you could start one, and call it the Red Herring group. Because the existence of such a group, and whether the courts would rule that signing their statement violated HUD's nondiscrimination requirements, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Old Baldy council violated HUD's nondiscrimination requirements.

I see, discrimination doesn't matter if it's a small amount of money, eh? So it would be OK for, say, a state government to financially support a youth group that excluded Jews?

If you'll look at the units of service (page 23 in the PDF file), the Old Baldy council got a point for: 1) each school visited 2) each boy who hears the recruitment talk 3) each boy who enrolls in the scouting program The grant paid for these units of service. Also, the contract requires that ALL services provided follow the nondiscrimination requirements, which means that atheists would have to be allowed to enroll in the Old Baldy council's scouting program.

So a little unlawful discrimination is OK with you, eh? I happen to think principals are important.

Bob, I keep calling you a liar because you ARE a liar, and a rather blatant one. You continue to claim that the BSA doesn't get any government money when the Old Baldy website SAYS they got government money, and when the ACLU complaint includes a copy of the actual contract signed by the Old Baldy council for a $15,000 grant. And predictably, you whine and plug your ears.

Let me get this straight, Bob; I point to actual documents showing the Old Baldy council getting money from the government, the Old Baldy website newsletter says they got this money from the government, you keep stating that "the BSA gets no money from the government", and you won't confuse ME with the facts? You can't confuse me with the facts, because you have no facts. Oh, and in the future, if you continue to lie and state that the BSA doesn't get any money from the government, I'll continue to call you on your lies. And any whining about how I'm not sticking to the subject will be ignored.

Bob, you're lying (again). It is not my "opinion" that the Old Baldy council received a $15,000 grant. That's a fact that the Old Baldy council admits to on their own webpage: http://www.obcbsa.org/March_Newsletter.pdf (see the last page) And your reply to larryfiehn was NOT that your district didn't get government money, or that you knew of no districts that receive government money, but that "the BSA gets no money from the government". larryfiehn and I can point to the Old Baldy grant as an example of the BSA getting money from the government.

The real problem is when you apply for a government grant that requires you to sign a nondiscrimination agreement, and then you use that money in a way that violates that agreement; now you've committed fraud.

I'm not really surprised that you would disapprove of my trying to stop government-funded religious discrimination against atheists; I suppose if there were thousands of public schools owning & operating youth groups that excluded Jews, and HUD grants were awarded to solicit members for these groups (as long as they weren't Jews, of course), you'd criticize people who tried to stop that, too.

Typically, Bob refuses to admit to his lying and instead tries to paint me as a villain for trying to stop discrimination against atheists. Tell me Bob, are you going to STOP claiming that the BSA gets no government money?

I know of a lot more instances of government money going to the BSA, but I cite the Old Baldy case a lot because it's currently in court and the complaint is available on-line. And no, it isn't ridiculous to accuse Bob White of lying, because he IS lying when he says the BSA gets no money from the government. He said that in reply to larryfiehn who pointed out that the supposedly "private" BSA still feeds at the public trough, which is quite true. Bob is trying to win the argument by falsely stating that the BSA does not get public money.

Let's get one thing straight, Bob; when you say that the BSA gets no government money, you're lying. You keep trying to defend your lying by saying the Old Baldy case hasn't been decided, but that case isn't about whether the OB council got money or not, it's whether they committed fraud to do so. There's no dispute over WHETHER they got the money. So every time you flatly state that "the BSA gets no money from the government", you are LYING! Got that?

Bob, everything I've stated is IN the contract, which you can read for yourself; there's nothing I've said that needs to be proven in court. And I will continue to object to your lies when you say the Boy Scouts don't get any government money; the Old Baldy contract is $15,000 in government money. Stop lying.

Bob White writes: What government funding? Their are charter organizations that get governemt monies to bring educational program such as some of the BSA programs to its youth, But the BSA gets no money from the government. Bob, the ACLU is currently suing HUD for granting money to BSA Scoutreach programs; that's government money: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Old_Blady_Complaint.pdf This complaint includes the original contract; you'll notice that all of the $15,000 HUD grant went into the pockets of two BSA execs (page 26), and that all this paid for was for the BSA to try to get kids to join their discriminatory program. And be sure to read the bottom of page 17, where the BSA agreed that they would not discriminate on the basis of religion & creed in the benefits of this government-funded program.

If you're advocating that the BSA is not a religious organization, I think you should direct your criticism at the BSA for filing court documents where they've said they're a religious organization. Why are you complaining about a judge AGREEING with the BSA's position?

Well, you said you read the decision, but you somehow missed things like the judge also citing facts to conclude that the BSA is a religious organization; he didn't base it solely on the BSA's self-declaration of being a religious organization, nor did I say it was the only reason. And yes, the BSA lease was a special deal; no other organization was given the opportunity to lease the property or give a different proposal on how to use the land.

whitewater writes: I have read the decision- I just don't agree with it. My impression was that the judge was against the Scouts from the beginning. The fact that he sided with the plaintiffs on their contention that the City's leases with other non-profit organizations was irrelevant, supports my feelings that he was biased. I think the other lease arrangements are very relevant. The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias. I also don't follow his reasoning that the lease violates the establishment clause. It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization. He mentioned very little of the secular nature of the majority of Scout activities. Well, you keep talking about the USE of public facilities, as if the judge ruled that the BSA can't use or rent public property, which isn't at all the issue. The city gave the BSA a special deal. And the other leases ARE irrelevant; some of them may or may not be legal, but that doesn't affect whether the BSA lease is legal. The only reason the BSA was "singled out" is because the lawsuit was filed against the BSA's lease; if you think other leases are illegal, you are free to file your own lawsuit against those other leases. The ACLU is not required to file lawsuits against all leases that may be illegal in order to press a lawsuit against a single lease that may be illegal. And if you read the ruling carefully, you'll notice the judge ruled the BSA a religious organization partly because the BSA's own filed briefs SAID they were a religious organization. And the BSA's secular activites are irrelevant as long as they keep out atheists for not having acceptable religious beliefs; a country club that doesn't admit Jews is still practicing religious discrimination even if all they do is play golf.