Merlyn_LeRoy

Scoutfish writes: Merlyn: Why does everything about scouting have to be about gay this or that? It doesn't. When BSA officials saw the newspaper report on James Dale as co-head of a gay rights group, why did they kick out Dale? Dale didn't talk about it with his troop; the story didn't mention his Scouting connection; Dale didn't know the BSA excluded gays (since at that time it was a secret internal memo that wasn't even known by the general public); Dale's troop didn't want him kicked out. So why did the BSA make an issue of it? Why didn't they just ignore it, instead of "making trouble"?

Ridiculous. The BSA could be like the SA in the UK, and have different membership rules for adults vs. youth. And the BSA kicked out atheist youth at least as far back as 1970, so you can't't blame "activists and politicians" for something the BSA has been doing for a long time. You're just trying to blame someone other than the BSA for the BSA's actions.

Eagledad, the BSA had been acting as a public accommodation for decades, what with 10% of its packs and troops run by public schools and advertising as being open to "all boys." The BSA still doesn't behave like the private club it insists it is.

The name may not be in the group, but likewise, my local VFW isn't called the "Veterans of Foreign Wars who swear they believe in God" either! The VFW dropped their "belief in god" requirement for membership a few years ago. Anyway, if you go to join a club, and see on the membership form that the club is against or for certain activities or beliefs... and you cannot abide by or agree to those beliefes..... why would you join? If you go to join a club, and see that your public school is running the club, and you saw that the club had unlawful religious requirements to join, why would you let your school violate your rights?

It wasn't a rally, it was a story on the college gay student group. Plus, of course, Dale was never told that gays couldn't join (and the BSA still has nothing on their membership form that tells anyone that gays can't join).

As we all know, demonizing a group of people for years never causes any problems, ever. And certainly groups that did the demonizing never have any responsibility for those problems that never happen.

I'd say the BSA is already involved in international politics, by their characterization of gays as "immoral" and "unclean" in court, and defending that view. Antisemitic attitudes (such as private "Restricted clubs" that excluded Jews) were fairly common in the US, until several million Jews were killed, and that kind of took the gloss off. Such attitudes by the BSA don't magically restrain themselves to American borders, and given that some BSA supporters justify the BSA's position on gays by referring to the bible, it's hardly surprising if some people decide that gays should be executed -- after all, that's what the bible says, too.

Why would the BSA have anything to say about it. They might want to make it clear that they don't support executing homosexuals. Assuming they don't support executing homosexuals.

Demonizing gays for years seems to have borne fruit, at least in Uganda. Turns out that David Bahati, the MP that wrote Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality bill that would execute gays, is also the Chief of the Scout Board of Uganda. WOSM is being urged to disassociate itself from the Uganda scout program. I wonder if the BSA will say anything. (fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

See Ed? It's pointless to try and argue with you. You simply make up stuff about other people's opinions as if that's sane.

Scoutfish, no, you obviously did not understand my point, and you still don't. If not having a government-paid chaplain is a violation of someone's religious rights, millions of people are having their religious rights violated right now. As to this: Now, If it was the persuasion of my religion to go to confession, and as a military person, there was no chaplin, pracher, father, rabbi or whoever...then I woud be denied my religious freedoms due to the nature of my employment b y the US government. This actually happens in real life in the military, as I've already pointed out. It's also common to not have a chaplain of your denomination available. Guess what? You have to deal with it in those cases. There's also the fact that, currently at least, there's no draft, so being in the military is a choice, and if you choose to make your own religious practices more difficult by enlisting, you ought to understand that there may be times when chaplains etc may not be available. [atheist/humanist chaplains] You are kidding right? No, I am not. MAAF has advocated atheist/humanist chaplains for some years now. I completely understand why n oibody is moving forward on such a complete wste of money! Ah, so other people have religious rights that cannot, under any circumstances, be limited, but chaplains for other people are a "complete waste of money." Gotcha. And about Ed: Read again! Every reference he made was a direct QUESTION to you about your position.... NOT a statement!!! Read again. Every statement made an assumption about my position. You can argue with Ed if you like, I won't stop you.

Ed, I have zero interest in discussing issues with someone like yourself who starts out by assuming someone else's position without asking first. There's absolutely no point. If you want to pointlessly converse, try an online Eliza simulation like http://www.parnasse.com/drwww.shtml

How do you know I'm not, Ed? For that matter, how do you know my position on taxpayer funded chaplains, Ed? You can't learn things, but that doesn't stop you from just making up suppositions and pretending they're true. Not a good way to address reality, in my book.

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/02/boy-scouts-at-100-years/

scoutfish writes: Well, the government is not paying for me to have a chaplin. They have yet to send one to my house or let me just drive on any bases to recieve that chaplins services. So I am not part of everyone. You missed my point. If not having government-paid chaplains constitutes "denying religious freedom," then most Americans are being denied religious freedom. It's a reductio ad absurdum. I can pretty much assume you are not military or you would understand the need for, even if you didn't use those services. Well, if you want to talk to atheists in the military, you can check out www.maaf.info . The quality of military chaplains with regard to atheist soldiers varies wildly. And the government chose to offere it for logistical reasons: It's hard to go to church or see a chaplin or preacher if you are going to battle in less than 5 minutes - and you happen to be on the other side of the world fighting for freedom that ALLOWS people to choose to not be religious or PRACTICE religion without OTHERS INTERFERING as the US CONSTITUTION GARANTEES! But again, not providing chaplains is not denying people their right to practice their religion. It makes it more difficult in a lot of cases, but even with the current situation, there are areas where chaplains aren't available, or where non-Christian chaplains aren't available. And if the government denied that service..It would be preventing United States citizens from practicing their religious freedoms as garanteed under the US Constitutuion!!!!! Wrong. It makes it more difficult, but it doesn't prevent people from practicing their religion. And there are some minority religions that have no military chaplains of their denomination. And MAAF has been pushing for some years for atheist/humanist chaplains, but there aren't any of those yet, either. I'm still waiting! For what? (fixed typo) (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Scoutfish writes: Who is everyone? Can you cite specific examples? Specific examples of everyone? Let's see, there's me, you, that guy over there... vol_scouter vaguely cited lawsuits over military chaplains as if that, itself, constituted an example of atheists attempting to stifle the free exercise of religion. I can't seem to find an actual lawsuit trying to remove military chaplains, just the ones in congress, and removing them wouldn't limit anyone's religious rights. I have seen atheists and atheist groups state that the government shouldn't be hiring military chaplains and suggest that religious denominations send their own chaplains instead of having the government do it. That wouldn't limit anyone's religious rights either, and it would get the government out of the chaplain business. See why I keep asking for specific examples? Removing "government-paid chaplains" doesn't impact anyone's religious rights, particularly if you don't confuse "removing government-paid chaplains" with the very different statement "removing chaplains."

vol_scouter writes: There have been attempts to remove the chaplains (and to limit what they can say regarding religion outside of an actual religious service) from the US military and from the congress (suit by Newdow). So the atheists steadfastly wish to read only one clause of the first amendment and deny the free exercise of religion. Why does the free exercise of religion require government-paid chaplains? Most people don't HAVE government-paid chaplains, so are their rights being limited now? Does the government need to pay for chaplains for everyone? The attempt to remove the cross (a WWI memorial) in the Mojave desert could be the first step in attempting to remove all religious insignia from military cemeteries. Sorry, your wild speculation on what "might" happen don't count when you accuse atheists of actually trying to limit people's religious freedom today. You need to come up with REAL examples, not ones you make up out of whole cloth. Atheists appear to wish never to be exposed to any religious expression. Well, more speculation on your part, with no actual examples. Certainly, such comments have been made to me before. So what? That doesn't constitute atheists attempting to limit people's right to free exercise of religion. Like everyone, I do not wish to see the federal government establish a state religion but I do not believe purging all religion from government and public functions is correct either. Well, you're still coming up short on actual examples. The courts have sent somewhat mixed messages and I suspect that the cross in the Mojave desert that is going to the SCOTUS will define the line differently again. Still waiting for examples from you to support this statement you've made about atheists: "Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion"

I'm not moving the goalposts at all, Ed. I'm asking which examples in his copied & pasted list are supposed examples.

Scoutfish writes: But most of the lawsuits prevent anybody from willining ly saying a persona prayer too. And that's just wrong. Point out one of your laundry list that prevents anyone from willingly saying a personal prayer.

vol_scouter writes: Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion which is given the same importance as the non-establishment clause. Wrong; I notice you give no examples. In my view, totally preventing the expression of faith in public is condoning atheism. I know of no atheist group that advocates the above, and I'm familiar with a great many of them.

boomerscout, I'm stopping my own government from unlawfully discriminating against atheists. You have a problem with religious freedom?

Oak Tree writes: but [the BSA] also will not charter to more conservative groups that would insist that they can tell the Scouts that there is one correct religion. I don't know what you mean by the above statement -- the BSA is perfectly willing to charter units that only allow members of a particular religion, typically churches that only want members of that church/religion to be members.

Scoutfish writes: The governemnt is not actually chartering anything. The school is. Just because the school gets government funding does not automatically make it an entirely government entity. Well, the fact that the school wouldn't even exist if the government decided to drop it, and that everything conducted by public school officials is under the auspices of state laws certainly makes it a government entity. It's a government-run school. Let me ask you this: if a public school decided to charter a softball team through a private group in a similar fashion to chartering a BSA unit, would that be legal if the private group: 1) excluded atheists from the softball team? 2) excluded Jews from the softball team? 3) excluded blacks from the softball team?

Scoutfish asks: Okay, let me ask this: Who has an issue with a VFD sponsoring a scout unit? Or a school for that matter? Is it anybody in here? Ohh! Ohh! Me! Me! (waves) I got the ACLU to write the BSA and tell them to stop issuing charters to public schools, because that would require public schools to practice religious discrimination against atheists, which is a violation of atheists' civil rights. I have a similar opinion of VFDs that are publicly funded that charter units. Do I win something?

I only know of situations where a governmental unit that was chartering a BSA unit (such as a Public elementary School) was dropped like a hot potato as soon as the issue was raised. When Rob Sherman's son was refused membership in the Buffalo Grove Explorer Post (pre-1998), the PD dropped the Exploring program instead of fighting a losing lawsuit. When the Scalise case came up in Michigan, a BSA unit chartered by another school in the same district was dropped.