Merlyn_LeRoy

dan writes: Is it your opinion that the 16 Scouts from Venture Crew 488, are better off now that they are not part of the BSA? If you believe they are better off, please tell me why, because it sure seems like a lose lose situation to me. I think everyone would be better off disassociating themselves from an organization as dishonest and discriminatory as the BSA, so, yes, I think they ARE better off. If you think it's a lose-lose situation, perhaps you should complain to the BSA for not renewing the Crew's charter and cutting off all those kids.

slontwovvy writes: Then defend your opinions, don't evade the questions. I WILL defend my opinions - MY opinions. As I pointed out before, you abscribed opinions to me without asking me what my opinions actually were. That's dishonest. And since this is a forum on scouting issues, debates should have some connection to scouting.

The government "owns and operates" BSA units that exclude atheists from membership; you've been told this countless times now, but it doesn't seem to sink in. The GSUSA doesn't have the government discriminating against atheists on their behalf.

FOG writes: Do you think that the ACLU would help my son get into GSUSA? If you can find a GSUSA unit "owned and operated" by a government agency, sure; otherwise, the GSUSA, being a private organization, can do what it likes. How about making me a GS leader and changing the rules so I can take the girls camping by myself. You'd have to convince them to change their leadership requirements; men can be GS leaders, but the GSUSA requires at least one female leader because she acts as a role model for the girls. to slontwovvy: I'll defend my positions, not someone else's.

In the specific case of being on a military base, I've seen military regs that cover all private organizations allowed on that base, and private organizations, even if they can legally discriminate, aren't allowed on base. The government can do this because it can show it has a vested interest in fighting against discrimination on its own military bases.

twocubdad, I think OGE has summed everything up well. I don't know what issue you think we differ on; access to public facilities are and should be open to everyone, a recent case would be the lamb's chapel decision.

I find it unlikely the Illinois nazi (Frank Collin) would resign because of that; his own father was Jewish. The ACLU had a Jewish lawyer defend the nazis just like they had a black lawyer defend the KKK; they do that to show that they don't agree with the views of their clients (and probably because they have a very droll sense of humor). The nazis never did march in Skokie, they marched in Chicago (Skokie's a suburb). Chicago had earlier denied them a permit, but after their court win, they granted it, and apparently that's where they wanted to demonstrate in the first place.

dan writes: Do you believe that the 16 members of Venture Crew 848 are better off now, now that they are no longer a part of the BSA? You'd have to ask them; I wouldn't belong to a dishonest organization like the BSA, certainly. As for their no longer being part of the BSA, that's apparently what the BSA wanted.

The dates of christmas and easter have nothing to do with their supposed christian events, and the goddess oester/ishtar fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs are still used. Mardi Gras parades are like parades anywhere else, organizations pay a parade permit (to cover the city's costs for security and cleanup). Anyone can have a parade, the ACLU made sure of that in the Skokie case.

I'm not being "silent", I'm explaining why your questions are loaded, and why you are just setting up a straw man to attack by attempting to TELL ME what my opinions ARE, instead of asking me first; there's simply no point in trying to argue with you. Meanwhile, ed mori keeps saying he's asked me a coherent question while refusing to reiterate what it was; if he won't bother to clarify it, I certainly won't bother to try and answer it. If anyone wants to actually debate the legal issues, let me know. I suggest anyone wanting to do so be familiar with court rulings like Torcaso, Everson, etc.

You're certainly free to sue; Little League didn't start admitting girls voluntarily, that was the result of a lawsuit. Lawsuits can actually change things. slontwovvy, I haven't confirmed any of your suspicions because you've never bothered to find out my actual opinions on other subjects; it's really easy to win arguments by creating straw men and knocking them down, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

bob white writes: Actually Merlyn I do know what an analogy is and you have failed to provide one. In an analogy an inferrence is made that if two or more things share a commonality in some areas they will be common in others. The analogy in my case being the requirement that the government not discriminate, whether that's against atheists or Jews. In your example you fail to show a basic common relationship between Judaism or any religion, and that of atheism or the total lack of religious belief. Without that commonality an analogy cannot be drawn in other relationships. But there IS a commonality; the government can't practice discrimination against atheists any more than it can practice discrimination against Jews. What if the BSA disallowed Jews? The fact is thay do not. I see you also don't understand hypothetical questions, often a part of analogies. The fact is the the ACLU has been unsuccessful now and in the past to affect the Scouting program. Let's see, did you miss the court striking down the BSA's $1/year lease in Balboa park? Did you miss the post where I mentioned that the 19th circuit court dropped its Troop 19 due to the ACLU? Did you miss the out-of-court settlement where the city of Chicago agreed to drop 28 BSA charters as a result of an ACLU lawsuit? That last settlement lead to the BSA moving Explorers into Learning for Life; that's a pretty big change.

FOG writes: Something that I find interesting about atheists is that they celebrate Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. Sort of hipocritical, isn't it? First, not all atheists do. Second, christmas and easter are originally pagan holidays, and given that the bible teaches against following pagan religious rituals, the christians are way ahead in the hypocrisy department.

cary P writes: I just did a quick check on the BSA website, and I couldn't find anything that states a CO "owns and operates" a BSA unit. It's here: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-507.html ... "To support approximately 124,000 Scouting units owned and operated by chartered organizations,"... And, as you say, the chartering organization selects the leadership, and the US government can't discriminate on the basis of religion for the BSA to do that, either. "Should the army practice unlawful religious discrimination and reject someone from a youth group that the army itself "owns and operates"? "Discrimination? In my eyes yes...Unlawful? No. On what basis? Do you think it would be equally lawful if the military ran youth groups that excluded Jews? Rules in the military state that I can't join the Officers club. Is the discrimanation? yes...Unlawful? no. That isn't discrimination on the basis of religion; I'm sure the officers club allows officers who are atheists to join (and, in fact, they would be required to).

bob white writes: But Merlyn the BSA does not turn away jewish kids. It doesn't even turn away Wicken kids or UU kids. So your point is seriously flawed. I thought you, at least, would be able to understand what an analogy is, and what it's for. I guess not. The US can't discriminate against Jewish kids OR atheist kids. It would be JUST AS LEGAL for a military base to run a "no Jews" youth group as a "no atheists" youth group. By JUST AS LEGAL, I mean not legal at all; the government can't offer its services only to people who have the "right" religious views, whether you or a majority think that Jews and/or atheists are wrong. But your own prejudice doesn't even allow you to see discrimination against atheist kids, even when you can easily see discrimination against Jewish kids.

Cary P writes: Now to answer you questions. For what I know, (and I could be wrong) is that BSA does not turn away youth, only adults, that do not agree with BSA's policies. You're wrong. The BSA has kicked out 12-year-olds for not having the "right" religious views, such as the Randall twins, and they have testified in court that first graders who are atheists cannot join the Boy Scouts. Also the military does not run BSA troops. The BSA itself says the charter partner "owns and operates" the unit, not the BSA. With this new information, what do you think should (or would) happen if an atheist son of a base soldier wants to join? Should the army practice unlawful religious discrimination and reject someone from a youth group that the army itself "owns and operates"?

cary P writes But until the ACLU wins, (that's if they win) then military units can charter BSA units. What do you think should happen if an atheist army brat applies for membership? Should the army tell the kid that the US military is running a group that atheist kids can't join? Do you think the US military could similarly run a youth group that excluded Jewish kids? ed mori keep whining: I'm still waiting on an answer to my question about "In God We Trust" on our currency! Because, as usual, your question makes all kinds of invalid assumptions. You seemed to claim that having IGWT on currency means the government can run youth groups that exclude atheists, but the two statements have no connection. American currency has Freemason imagery on it too, does that mean the government could run youth groups only open to Freemasons and their families?

FOG writes: Is it the unit that is chartering the troop or is the squardron welfare organization or whatever you zoomies call the recreation and support organization? It doesn't change things if the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation department charters it; the MWR department can't discriminate on the basis of religion, either: http://www.armymwr.com/corporate/regulations/r215_1.pdf 733. Nondiscrimination MWR activities do not discriminate on the basis of race, color,religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, political affiliation,or physical handicap. A NAFI may not be affiliated by membership,dues or non-dues paying, with any private sector recreational, trade,or professional association that practices discrimination in any form.No MWR facility or activity will be made available to any organiza-tion that practices discrimination nor will any NAFI use the land,facilities, or services of such organizations. Bob white writes: You are welcome to file suit against any charting organization you wish to see scouting removed from but do not expect the BSA to say "no" to any organization willing to uphold it's values and policies. The government cannot uphold the BSA's religious requirements. As far as the relationship between the US government and the military I am happy to report that all is well and strong. To date every single court action against the federal government regarding its support of scouting has been determined in favor of the government and scouting. Which court actions are you referring to? I can't think of any that have received a verdict. Interestingly enough for the military to defend these lawsuits claiming that they illegally sponsor scouting with tax-payers money, they must use taxpayers money to defend themselves. Still no court has found them to be doing anything illegal. No court has found them legal, either, since there hasn't been a verdict on them.

cary P writes: If a military unit sponsoring a BSA unit were illegal, then these charters would have been pulled. There's an ACLU lawsuit against the DoD over BSA charters now, and I'm quite sure the ACLU will win, since the government can't practice the BSA's religious discrimination. Slontwovvy, since you haven't the courtesy to ASK me what my position is on the issues you state, I consider your question to be dishonest, as you have abscribed political positions to me that I have not stated. Plus, most of your questions are loaded or contain erroneous assumptions (for example, did you know white students can get grants from the United Negro College Fund?) Of course, the whole slant of your questions is just misdirection; if other injustices exist, does this excuse the BSA's dishonesty in chartering discriminatory BSA units to government agencies? No, of course not.

Here are a couple on the web that specifically state who charters them: Troop 232, Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas http://samgraham.org/Troop232/troop232.htm Troop 232 is sponsored by the 82d Communications Squadron Troop 38, 12 FTW (12th Flying Training Wing) Randolph AFB, Texas http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/7438/ We are Chartered by the 12 FTW Randolph AFB I've found about 50, and that's only units on the web that mention who their charter partner is.

dsteele writes: If support by the government of the Boy Scouts of America were unconstitutional, we would not be chartered by the United States Congress. Wrong; the US similarly charters racist organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution, which in 1939 refused to allow their building to host a black singer, Marion Anderson, causing Eleanor Roosevelt to resign from the DAR. It is no more "support" than registering an organization's trademarks. Chartering individual units causes the US government to actually refuse service to citizens based solely on their religious views, which is illegal, and which has never been upheld by any court.

scoutldr writes: So, as an educated and intelligent person, my interpretation is that Government may support groups such as the Scouts, who have religious duty as a basic tenet, however, in turn those groups may NOT advocate (and thereby discriminate) a specific religion over another (e.g., LDS, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam) or exclude those who choose not to agree. Are you saying that such units would be required to admit atheists? Whether your answer is yes or no, you're still wrong; the government can't support religion over non-religion either, as Torcaso v. Watkins pointed out. Benefits provided by the GOvernment (that is, our tax dollars), must be made available to all citizens regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or creed. Exactly. And that includes people who don't subscribe to the creed "god exists". However, by owning and operating youth groups that exclude such people, the government is excluding them from this benefit, solely on the basis of creed. slontwovvy writes: I'd be very curious to discover if Merlyn has observed a Scout meeting recently, or ever. Maybe he'd see just how "discriminatory" the average troop is. I realize that many, if not most troops ignore the religious requirement. However, this is just like an organization that is "officially" Restricted (no Jews), but Jews can join if they aren't "obviously" Jewish, and if they keep their mouths shut, and if they don't kick up a fuss how their local Sheriff's office is running a youth group that is, officially, "no Jews allowed". If you don't recognize all the problems inherent in the above situation, you just aren't familiar with US history. ev mori writes: By not letting government agencies sponsor Troops/Packs/Crews would be a violation of the 1st ammendment! Of course not; the government can't support "no atheists" groups any more than it can support "no Jews" groups. If I start a group that doesn't admit Jews, you're saying it's unlawful if the government refuses to financially support my group?! Sorry, you're one of those looking-glass Christians like Judge Moore, who feel your rights are infringed when the government is restricted from promoting your religion; you have no idea what religious freedom really means, and I'm completely serious. dsteele writes: Your argurment isn't invalid -- would it kill you to admit that some of us are trying to be fair? -- but history sides with the BSA. First, I see nobody trying to be fair; everyone (except possibly OGE) seems to be defending government-run "no atheists" youth groups. That description itself shows how unfair the situation is, since you can change it to "no Jews" or "no Catholics" and the legal issues are identical. If thousands of government agencies across the US owned and operated youth groups that excluded Catholics, would you consider that fair, or would you consider it fair only if the government stopped doing it? Second, I've been talking about government-owned BSA units, and the BSA has always lost there. They get to choose only one: be a religiously discriminatory, private group, or government charters. They cannot have both, because the constitution prohibits it. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

scoutldr writes: Merlyn, read the "12 steps"...do you also advocate goverment agencies withdraw support from Alcoholics Anonymous? Yes; courts have ruled that AA is "unequivocally religious", and have struck down mandatory AA attendance as violating the person's religious freedom (they can, of course, be required to attend some kind of alcohol treatment program, but AA can't be the only possible choice). The government can't support an "unequivocally religious" program. What about military chaplains and churches on military bases? I think you mean "chapels"; chaplains are required to serve ALL soldiers, not just those whose religious beliefs agree with theirs, and chapels are also open to all. There was a lawsuit a few years ago in Hawaii about a naval chapel that refused to host a polytheist native Hawaiian wedding, and the Navy lost. Your tax dollars are providing religion to the troops and the amount spent is FAR in excess of the paltry support provided to the BSA. But if we want to provide a coffee pot in our office (military), we are not allowed to spend congressionally appropriated funds ... we have to pay coffee mess dues. Where is the logic? Why not go after the BIG bucks where you could make a difference. Using your "logic", it would be OK with you if the local sheriff's office ran a youth group that excluded Jews, since that's such a trivial amount of money. I notice your preply completely ignored the issue of government agencies owning and operating youth groups that don't allow atheists to join. Do you consider religious discrimination by the government to be a trivial issue that should be ignored?

ed mori writes: By sponsoring a Troop/Pack/Crew a government agency isn't breaking the law. By sponsoring a troop/pack/crew, a government agency is "owning and operating" a youth group that discriminates on the basis of religion, which is in violation of the first amendment of the constitution.

I'd say most of the government agencies don't realize that the BSA expects them to actually break the law and exclude atheists. But back to your statement: "In essence, if the chartered organization does not want to agree to uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts of America, as was done in this case, the charter will not be approved by the local council." As I've pointed out, no government agency CAN uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts; so why are there so many local councils that still approve charters to government agencies?