Merlyn_LeRoy

Explorers is not scouting but rather part of LFL. Yes Beavah, if you read the scouts-l postings, that touched off why gays can be in Exploring but not in scouting. And what 13-year-old has any real idea of what his sexual orientation is? Get real. Let the kid be a kid, eh? His parents and da other adults manipulatin' him for their sexual politics should get a swift, hard kick in the behind. Oh, like the way you're doing now? Because that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying a 13-year-old can't tell his own sexual orientation. It's clear you didn't bother to read the article, either. The BSA policy has always been focused on the requirements for adult membership as a role model, example, and leader. No, it hasn't. They used to explicitly exclude gay youth. They still explicitly exclude atheists (and girls).

John, sorry, I'm not a troll. You aren't using the term correctly. What you want to whine about is that I disagree with you, and you can't make me shut up. ScoutNut, here's the pre-2004 policy: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA." Clearly rules out youth members. I previously posted what bsalegal.org says now. I'll highlight some bits: Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scoutings values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. Notice that there is no statement that gay youth can't be scouts -- instead, when it talks about a gay youth member, it only says he would not be able to hold a "youth leadership position." It says nothing about removing his membership. Of course, with organizations that have secret and unannounced membership requirements, it's hard to tell when they actually change. If gay youth aren't allowed, period, why doesn't the policy state that a youth who comes out as gay loses his membership?

This message to the scouts-l mailing list: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=SCOUTS-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=436785 talks about the NT Times Magazine story on coming out gay in high school, showing a 13-year-old who is on the cover wearing an Explorer T-shirt from the Sand Springs PD: Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27out-t.html Cover: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/09/27/magazine/27cover-395.jpg This started a 3G discussion, and someone pointed out that the BSA policy on bsalegal.org seems to allow for gay youth members: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=SCOUTS-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=442289 He quotes from here: http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp ● Youth Leadership Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scoutings values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. This post says this (unannounced?) change took place back in 2004, according to wikipedia: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=SCOUTS-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=446171 Someone else also pointed out that "youth leadership position" seems to be a pretty nebulous term now: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=SCOUTS-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=448674

And by the same token, stopping government discrimination against atheists is a bad thing in your view. Like I said, you don't think atheists even have civil rights. When public schools had to drop BSA charters, you said "what a sad and tragic society that allows this kind of activity to take place." You whined back then, you're whining now.

BadenP, I'm stopping my own government from practicing the BSA's bigoted discrimination against atheists. I know you don't consider atheists to have civil rights, but the courts are on my side. Civil rights are not a "minor legal technicality," and it's the BSA's policies that are "depriving youth of the scouting experience," so I suggest if you want to improve the situation, convince the BSA to change their bigoted policies. Until they do, I'll work to remove all the illegal charters I can find.

Sheesh, people here don't even know what an internet troll is... Sorry, I'm not posting off-topic (unlike most of the recent threads in I&P which have nothing connected to scouting), and I'm certainly not losing the argument. Handwaving can't remove constitutional problems. vol_scouter, I'm not forgetting about the free exercise clause, and I'm certainly not stopping anyone. But the only outfit "denying scouting to our youth" is the BSA itself. And that's why organizations like CAP can't charter Venture Crews.

BadenP, I compiled a list of thousands of illegal public school charters and gave them to Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU. He wrote this letter ( http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/bsaletter.pdf ) to the BSA, telling them to stop issuing charters to public schools or the ACLU would start filing lawsuits. Clark Farrer, the BSA's Director of Registration, replied with this letter ( http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/bsaletter2.pdf ) where the BSA agreed to end all charters to public schools. That stopped about 9,000 public school charters. In Texas (BSA's home base), 25% of all Cub Scout Packs were chartered by public schools. So yes, I HAVE helped stop thousands of illegal BSA charters. You're the one who's delusional.

Yeah, that's the usual cycle here -- someone insists over and over that this or that group really can practice religious discrimination by chartering a BSA unit, and then totally switches gears and says it doesn't matter, and why don't I do something useful and get a life. That's what happened with military sponsorship, and public school charters, and now CAP. And other people keep insisting that preventing my own government from discriminating against atheists really isn't important at all. And all the people who try and tell me this belong to an organization that discriminates against atheists. And your Don Quixote comparison isn't apt, because I've actually helped stop thousands of unlawful charters. My efforts are by no means fruitless.

BadenP, you seem to be the one who has gone over the edge; you keep making up crap as if that will somehow allow the Civil Air Patrol to continue chartering Venture Crews. What's the matter, is there one you belong to that would get cut off?

Well John-in-KC, this will probably be settled with another letter from the ACLU, telling the BSA to stop issuing charters to organizations that can't practice religious discrimination, just like public schools. The BSA isn't trustworthy, so people like me have to force them to act honestly.

Read Eamonn's citation, READ what I WRITE. CAP is a volunteer civilian auxillary that can be used by the USAF but it is NOT a part of the military, I haven't said ANYTHING to contradict that. Thats what volunteer, civilian, and auxillary mean, it also means that they are NOT bound legally to fly any mission they might find too risky, I HAVEN'T SAID A DAMN THING ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO FLY ANYTHING. much like in the Coast Guard auxillary for example we can turn down a rescue mission if it is deemed too risky. Bottom line- military agencies can request assistance of an auxillary but that auxillary is not legally bound to perform it. SO WHAAAAAT!???? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER CAP OR THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY CAN PRACTICE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. If they were indeed part of the military that would not be the case. IT'S LUCKY I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING, THEN. So again you have proven nothing to refute what I have said BECAUSE ALL YOU DO IS BABBLE IRRELEVANCIES. and I am through trying to correct your misinformation You haven't quoted ONE THING I've said that's incorrect. You keep making up things and falsely trying to pin them on me. and attempts to grasp at straws and find a villian behind every case. CAP units that charter Venture Crews are breaking the law.

Kahuna writes: Now, Merlyn is trying to deny that ACORN and moveon.org have been known to do things to sabotage people who don't like Obama's policies. No, I'm pointing out how you've gone from denying any racial slurs at tea parties to blaming them all on ACORN and moveon.org without so much as a shred of evidence.

Oh Merlyn I was just refuting your prior posts claiming the CAP is a military organization Here you're just making up statements and claiming I made such claims, which I haven't. Here's what I said: CAP is part of the US government CAP employees are paid by the US Air Force Both are true statements, assuming www.af.mil didn't get it wrong. and a government agency which it is not, Here you're just making up statements and claiming I made such claims, which I haven't. I never claimed CAP was a "government agency." CAP is clearly part of the US government. or run by the Congress which it does not, Here you're just making up statements and claiming I made such claims, which I haven't. I said "congress decides how CAP is run," and since congress can (and has) passed laws telling CAP how it is run and how its board of governors are selected, then yes, congress DOES decide how CAP is run. or being controlled by air force officers which it is not, I said "currently the board of directors is appointed by CAP senior members and the Secretary of the Air Force" Civil Air Patrol is headed by a National Commander, currently Major General Amy S. Courter. The organization is governed by a Board of Governors, established by federal law in 2001 and consisting of 11 members: four Civil Air Patrol members (currently the National Commander, National Vice Commander, and two members-at-large appointed by the CAP National Executive Committee), four Air Force representatives appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force, and three members from the aviation community jointly appointed by the CAP National Commander and the Secretary of the Air Force. proving once again your claims are meritless and your arguments just a lot of hot air. No, you just can't admit you're wrong, so you just make up nonsense.

Sherm, I like the way Kahuna has the cojones to try and blame ACORN or moveon.org for the racial whackos that he has somehow managed to finally notice. Sounds like he's gone from Denial to Blaming Others, what's the next stage?

Get it straight son, auxillary members are VOLUNTEERS we get no pay. Get it straight, the government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, even if people volunteer. They do not discriminate, but then neither does an LFL post. But Venture Crews do, which is why I'm talking about CAP and charters with Crews or Varsity scouts. The ties to government as you claim does not make the auxillary subject to military orders, they can not be pressed into military service at ANY time, rather the military may request some help in areas of nonenforcement and nonmilitary tasks which the auxillary can choose to accept or reject based on their current number of volunteers available. So please don't twist your misunderstanding of auxillaries to fit your erroneous views. You're the one doing bizarre twisting -- I've NEVER claimed your imaginary fantasies that CAP is "subject to military orders" or "pressed into military service" -- these are the product of your imagination, not mine, as some sort of red herring. What I HAVE said is that CAP's government ties makes it illegal for them to charter Venture Crews, so the ones that exist have to go. Next time, answer what I have been claiming, instead of answering phantom claims that nobody has been making.

By your own words, "a nonprofit corporation", "an auxillary of the USAF" Yep, the US can set up nonprofit corporations that are an auxiliary of a branch of the military. It's still controlled and partly financed by the government, which means it can't exclude atheists any more than it can exclude Jews. Excluding atheists would go against their own nondiscrimination policy, too. A member of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary is apparently an employee of the Dept. of Homeland Security. In no way or stretch of the imagination are CAP or CGA considered a military organization I never said they were. But neither can practice religious discrimination because of their governmental ties. ...instead groups of civilians with a passion for flying or boating. They are groups with enough governmental ties to prohibit religious discrimination. A private boating group could be all-white if they wanted to be, but not the Coast Guard Aux.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=163 ... Civil Air Patrol is a Congressionally chartered, federally supported, non-profit corporation that serves as the official auxiliary of the U. S. Air Force. ... Headquarters Civil Air Patrol is located at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., The headquarters is staffed with nearly 100 full-time civilian employees who provide administrative and logistics support to 57,000 CAP members nationwide. Although paid by the Air Force, these employees are neither Air Force civil servants or contractors, they are employees of the CAP Corporation. ... In May 1948, Public Law 557 made the organization the official auxiliary of the Air Force. This law, known as the CAP Supply Bill, authorized the Secretary of the Air Force to assign military and civilian personnel to liaison offices at all levels of CAP. Congress again fundamentally modified the organization in 2000. With the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act, Congress clarified auxiliary status as a conditional state dependent on CAP performing actual services for a federal department or agency. Congress also specified the funding mechanisms the Air Force must use to provide funds to CAP for operations, maintenance, and procurement of property. Most significantly, Congress created the CAP Board of Governors to serve as the principal governing body of the organization. This 11-member board is made up of members appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force and senior CAP volunteers. The Board of Governors provides strategic direction and guidance to CAP, while delegating many day-to-day operations of CAP to the CAP National Commander and his staff. ...(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

CAP employees are paid by the US Air Force, congress decides how CAP is run (and currently the board of directors is appointed by CAP senior members and the Secretary of the Air Force), and CAP has its own nondiscrimination policy that includes religion. I disagree that they can legally charter a discriminatory BSA unit.

OK, McFly, I guess I will have to use kindergarten words, so you can understand. Well, it doesn't look like you can understand, even after repeated attempts to teach you. I answered - nope. That also means "no." No. Nein. Nada. NO. Comprende? Which I took as part of your denial of your having said that. You didn't answer "nope." You answered "Nope, don't put words in my mouth, never said that." In that context, for people who can read normal English, the "Nope," with the comma is part of your denial that you said that. However, you've finally managed to answer the question. I asked you a question - "I'd be interested to hear what you think about the New York Times and CBS, after all the fiction they REPORTED as news." You even acknowledged this was a question, when you said "Well, since you won't bother to answer my questions, why should I bother answering yours?" You hadn't actually asked me any questions at that point. "I'd be interested to hear what you think about the New York Times and CBS, after all the fiction they REPORTED as news." is a statement, not a question. Instead of answering my question, you asked yours - "So you're saying it's OK for IBD to print crap if other people do it too?" Hence, you answered my question with a question. You still don't seem to know what an actual question looks like. I think I hear your mom calling you. Time to go home and take your bath. My mother's been dead for a few years.

So, illegals are already getting health care, at taxpayer expense. Anyone paying attention has known that for years.

So, Merlyn, if you forbid CAP youth squadrons from concurrently chartering as Venturing Crews, where do you propose they get the physical resources to do some of their activities from? I propose they do something legal, like use an Explorer Post instead of a Venture Crew. Would a Post get the same access? If so, problem solved. If not, they can't use an illegal arrangement, even if it's convenient to do so.

Uh.....McFly....I did answer your question. Uh, McFly....you didn't even recognize my question as a question. But why don't you point out exactly where you answered my question. Here's what I wrote: So you're saying it's OK for IBD to print crap if other people do it too? Here's what you wrote: ML, Nope, don't put words in my mouth, never said that. I said I was interested in your opinion of the others, given your severe criticism of IBD over one mistake. Now, the first sentence says you never said that, but you don't indicate if that's what you meant or not. Your second sentence also doesn't indicate if that's what you meant or not. Here's a little suggestion for you - don't answer a question with a question. I didn't. Here's what you wrote earlier: Yep, IBD made one mistake in one EDITORIAL. I'd be interested to hear what you think about the New York Times and CBS, after all the fiction they REPORTED as news. Neither one of those sentences are questions. And phrasing that way does mean you are trying to put words in someone's mouth, as in "are you saying...?" No, that's what's known as trying to clarify what someone meant by what they said.

One of the articles has this: Quote from: CAPR 52-16, Section 6.2 6-2. CAP Policy for Dual-Chartering With the Boy Scouts of America. CAP and the Venturing and Varsity divisions of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have much in common. CAP encourages dual membership in both CAP and BSA as either a Varsity Scouting Team or Venturing Crew, with CAP being the chartered partner. By being the chartered partner, CAP is the basis for the union; therefore, members first belong to CAP. The existing CAP structure does not change and all members will conform to CAP standards and wear the CAP uniform. This is also at http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R052_016_9D037830938CC.pdf It looks like there are some CAP Venturing units in Maryland.

Nope, don't put words in my mouth, never said that. I never SAID you said that. I ASKED you "So you're saying it's OK for IBD to print crap if other people do it too?" I said I was interested in your opinion of the others, given your severe criticism of IBD over one mistake. Well, since you won't bother to answer my questions, why should I bother answering yours?

So you're saying it's OK for IBD to print crap if other people do it too?