Merlyn_LeRoy

"da acts of a few of its members many decades ago." You know, I could've affirmed I wrote just before this message something about Brad Allen NOT being from 30 years ago, and before that, the fact that he was the exec for the Seattle council, and not just some random member. Oh, I did. "I'll bet that at least some on the list were falsely accused. We might want to remember that sometimes accusations are not true and can absolutely ruin someone life." Yeah, that's why it's important to get the legal system involved instead of just having amateurs make arbitrary judgements.

Here's a clue, people; Brad Allen isn't from 30 years ago. Oh, but it must be my fault somehow.

SeattlePioneer, once again protecting the BSA from any and all accusations of ever doing anything wrong. Yawn.

I honestly think your working a separate political agenda by stiring hatred using old news against many many very good volunteers. This is "new" old news; it wasn't discovered until the BSA was forced by the courts to release their files. The revelation that many BSA execs protected molesters in some cases IS news. Of course, in some cases it's old news. I posted this in 2007: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=164736&p=1 Brad Allen was scout exec of the Seattle council from 2006-2010, when the national BSA made him area director for Area Two of the Western Region. I asked five years ago why this guy is still in the BSA, and I'm asking again now. But once again people in this forum respond by burying their heads in the sand. Oh, and whining about ME, like I'VE done something wrong. Typical.

BadenP writes: You may disagree all you like but facts are facts. So where's the "fact" that most school districts, college and university faculties, administrations, and board of trustees have covered up child molestation? Note that you can't just point to single incidents, you have to show that more than 50% of these have covered up child molestation.

Basementdweller writes: I am going to bet that there is no official National or council policy about folks resigning and covering abuse up I am going to bet you didn't read the article: That same year, the director of a Boy Scout camp in Virginia wrote to the Scouts' top lawyer, asking for help dealing with a veteran employee suspected of a "lifelong pattern" of abuse that had not been reported to police. "When a problem has surfaced, he has been asked to leave a position 'of his own free will' rather than risk further investigation," the director wrote. "The time has come for someone to make a stand and prevent further occurrences." There is no indication the Scouts took the matter to law enforcement. ... In the 1970s and '80s, secrecy was embedded in the Scouts' policies and procedures for handling child sexual abuse. A cover sheet that accompanied many confidential files included a check box labeled "Internal (only scouts know)" as an option for how cases were resolved. A form letter sent to leaders being dismissed over abuse allegations stated: "We are making no accusations and will not release this information to anyone, so our action in no way will affect your standing in the community." That letter was included in the organization's 1972 policy on how to remove unfit leaders, which, according to an attached memo, was kept confidential "because of misunderstandings which could develop if it were widely distributed." ... In a 1987 case in Washington state, a district executive wrote to the national office complaining that his boss had refused to put a former scoutmaster on the blacklist, despite a molestation conviction, "because he has done so much for camp and is a nice guy." He had handed a newspaper clipping of the conviction to his boss, who "crumpled it up, said he saw it already, and then said, 'Why don't you just put it up on a billboard for everyone to see?'" the executive wrote. "Since that time, nothing has been done." All of the above indicate that people at national were contacted, and that nothing was done.

BadenP writes: The same thing is also true with the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations, most school districts, college and university faculties, administrations, and board of trustees, and any other organization that deals primarily with youth. So what is your point? That some of them deserve prison, like this guy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/philadelphia-church-official-to-be-sentenced-in-abuse-case.html Msgr. William J. Lynn, the first Roman Catholic Church official in the United States to be convicted of covering up sexual abuses by priests under his supervision, was sentenced Tuesday to three to six years in prison. And I disagree with your assertion that "most" school districts et al. are committing crimes by covering up abuse instead of reporting it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boy-scouts-files-20120916,0,6937684.story or http://tinyurl.com/93gfpp8 Over two decades, the Boy Scouts of America failed to report hundreds of alleged child molesters to police and often hid the allegations from parents and the public. A Los Angeles Times review of 1,600 confidential files dating from 1970 to 1991 has found that Scouting officials frequently urged admitted offenders to quietly resign and helped many cover their tracks. Volunteers and employees suspected of abuse were allowed to leave citing bogus reasons such as business demands, "chronic brain dysfunction" and duties at a Shakespeare festival. The details are contained in the organization's confidential "perversion files," a blacklist of alleged molesters, that the Scouts have used internally since 1919. Scouts' lawyers around the country have been fighting in court to keep the files from public view. As The Times reported in August, the blacklist often didn't work: Men expelled for alleged abuses slipped back into the program, only to be accused of molesting again. Now, a more extensive review has shown that Scouts sometimes abetted molesters by keeping allegations under wraps. In the majority of cases, the Scouts learned of alleged abuse after it had been reported to authorities. But in more than 500 instances, the Scouts learned about it from boys, parents, staff members or anonymous tips. In about 400 of those cases 80% there is no record of Scouting officials reporting the allegations to police. In more than 100 of the cases, officials actively sought to conceal the alleged abuse or allowed the suspects to hide it, The Times found. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/eagle-scout-activist-shares-family-story-at-democratic-national-convention/2012/09/11/e72e4106-fc18-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_blog.html

I understand the difference just as I understand the distinction between "promoting" and "imposing". For example, the U.S. government "promotes" population control, while the Chinese government "imposes" it. You've given no indication in this thread. Public school employees are agents of the state while they are acting in their official capacity. Under the Supreme Court cases, the government (including a school) cannot organize a prayer or other religious observance. And that is one of many reasons why the Supreme Court is not taken seriously and its decisions viewed with suspicion and even derision. By you. maybe. Public schools promoting religion is a rights violation (not to mention a disaster).

scroll down to the table: http://bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html It has BSA membership from 1986-2011 and TAY from 1992-2008

Why are you arguing for an all-powerful government? You realize that prohibiting governmental prayer in schools is a restriction against the government, don't you? You're the one arguing for government force to prevent atheists from being offended, not I. Not at all; people can pray in school, but school officials can't promote prayer. You can't seem to understand the different between private acts vs. a government employee acting as an agent of the state. If the Constitution and the XIVth Amendment taken together mean that prayer can be forbidden in schools It doesn't, and prayer has never been forbidden in schools. What's prohibited is government imposition of prayers. Addendum: if the 14th didn't apply the first amendment to the states, each state could e.g. have an official state religion with required prayers in state schools, or e.g. ban ALL prayers in state schools. Holding state governments to the first amendment prevents either of these from happening.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Well, I'm confident that it's interpreted that way now. Of course it is, which is one of the reasons why ordinary people have so little confidence in the federal justice system. If the Constitution plus the XIVth Amendment can be used to ban prayer in schools, for example, they can be used to do anything. Why are you arguing for an all-powerful government? You realize that prohibiting governmental prayer in schools is a restriction against the government, don't you? You omitted the part where people were killed over which version of the bible to use in public schools. I'm not sure which incident you're referring to, but yes, there were riots in Philadelphia, for example -- I didn't "omit" them, I gave a brief summary. You even have your own definition of "omit"? Anyway, did you want to go back to those times, when people were killed over which bible to use?

Public schools had prayer for nearly 100 years following the adoption of the (non-ratified) XIVth Amendment. So I am confident in asserting that the XIVth Amendment was never intended to overturn prayer in schools. Well, I'm confident that it's interpreted that way now. . In the XIXth century, yes, children were forced to say prayers in school and forced to read from the Bible (in many cases, the KJV). Those "offended" by this practice (e.g., Catholics, who were actually more than merely "offended," since Catholics were not permitted to read the KJV at the time) sought redress at the local level and when that didn't work, started their own school system. Which is exactly what those opposed to the BSA policy don't appear willing to do - start their own program. You omitted the part where people were killed over which version of the bible to use in public schools.

Nope, sorry Merlyn. No evidence. Court cases aren't evidence now? (Public schools can't promote religion; that's not within the power of the government, federal or state (states used to have this power, but not now). - Supporting your students right to have beliefs and exercise them is not the same actually promoting a Religion. But this doesn't include having the school push religion on students. First amendment was to stop a Church of England incident. If you'll read what Madison wrote, it included quite a bit more than that. Freedom of religion is not Freedom from religion. Period. And the constitution doesn't use either phrase. But both concepts are there. Your obviously heavily indoctrinated in your view. You feel you have a righteous crusade for the 1st Amendment, almost religiously......HHHmmmm.. You're obviously heavily into denial, so much so that actual court cases are irrelevant. I like living in the real world. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

(But the 14th amendment prevents state government from infringing on rights granted by the federal government.) No right has been infringed upon. Please re-read the first amendment. Maybe third times the charm. Read actual court opinions. "We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." " Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause" -Why are we as a nation wasting energy in such a trivial argument of opinion. (Why are you?) Well I'm stuck on another 72 hr shift at the Firehouse. But since we are going juvenile on responses. Ok my turn.. I don't know why are you? I happen to think first amendment rights are important, particularly in preventing the government from promoting religion. I've yet to see any proof of any government entity pushing any form of religion on anybody. Well, here's one example. I can easily come up with more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/11/jessica-ahlquist-has-won-her-lawsuit/ No one is required to join the government run Church of America. "Voluntary" isn't sufficient to make it legal. The government only has the powers granted to it by the people, and promoting religion isn't one of them; not only that, it's expressly prohibited. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

- It says Congress shall not make a law in the creation of or against a religion. - A law against prayer in school would contradict that whole law against a religion. Yes, but that's not the case here. - It does say freedom of speech, which would mean you could pray anywhere anytime. Try that argument by entering the white house when it isn't open to the public. - Congress would mean Federal government. Until the 14th amendment. - State Governments run Schools. State Governments have there own Constitutions. But the 14th amendment prevents state government from infringing on rights guaranteed by the federal government. - Religions paid for the first public schools in America starting in 1600's - For the following 200 years churches were used as schoolhouses during the week. Not relevant. - Why are we as a nation wasting energy in such a trivial argument of opinion. Why are you? So....In the document forged in blood,sweat, and tears of our Nations greatest minds and leaders....where does it say no prayer in school?? It doesn't. Don't you even know what the argument is about? Public schools can't promote religion; that's not within the power of the government, federal or state (states used to have this power, but not now). (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

The first amendment puts limits on what the government can do, and public schools are run by the government. If you want a more detailed breakdown, try Engel v. Vitale http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421

Now, you may think that saying group prayer in school, or even just seeing a prayer banner in the school, may not be an imposition. Right, I do think that because it is not an imposition. What is an imposition is the eradication of religion from public schools. Well, in the US at least, that hasn't been done. No one is forced to take part in prayer (that would be an imposition). Public schools do not have the authority to promote religion; that's unconstitutional. The only force employed is to make certain that religion doesn't show its face in public schools. Again, that isn't done in the US.

According to the latest announcement: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Despite-protests-Boy-Scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays-3713046.php ... The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 102-year-old organization. Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since. UPDATE: Wow, apparently part of this "11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders" was surreptitiously filmed and put up on youtube: (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Why do you say the rest of the board is against him (or allowing gays)?

TODAY we are dealing with the ability of homosexuals to squash any and all opposition to any form of their sexual expression. Anyone who has the temerity of suggesting that any aspect of the homosexual agenda is wrong is subject to ridicule, attack, boycott or whatever. Pretty much the same with other ideas, like being against mixed-race marriages or that native Americans are savages. I suggest you grow a thicker skin.

(duplicate post deleted)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

No, I don't; Thompson seems be the most common attribution when there is one.

Half of life is just showing up. -- Hunter S. Thompson