Merlyn_LeRoy

Gonzo1 writes: as John-in-KC points out, it would take a long time for LA (or anyone else) to duplicate what LFL has to offer. As CalicoPenn pointed out in the earlier thread about this, "these LFL units are Police and Fire Department cadet units - not only does the City (through its individual police and fire stations) sponsor these units, all of the adult leaders are active-duty City of LA police and fire department employees - working out of the station that the cadets meet in. It is extremely unlikely that the City of LA will fold its Police and Fire Cadet programs because all of a sudden, they can't associate with LFL. Interestingly enough, the Commissioners of the LAPD has been pushing for the department to end ties with LFL for a while now, and have been doing so since before this letter from LL. It seems the only reason the department brass can come up with for their reluctance is that their cadets won't be eligible to play in the National Explorer Post competitions anymore - that seems to be the sum total of the benefit they're able to point to. " And LA doesn't like the BSA's rules, so they're leaving, and that includes LFL.

Gonzo1 writes: The bottom line is, you don't have to join And LA doesn't have to use LFL. But that doesn't mean "kids are out to do all kinds of evil on the streets;" you make it seem like LFL is the only possible program.

packsaddle, Gold Winger seems to be advancing the creationist line that opinions are interchangable, and that scientific opinions are on the same footing as religious opinions ("I've never seen a black hole and I'm only taking the word of a bunch of physicists that that they exist. Is that different from religion? "), which sets up the creationist position that the opinions of tens of thousands of current biologists, and the opinions of scientifically ignorant creationists who aren't even competent enough to understand the term "theory" should be given equal weight. While we're at it, let's give geocentrism and the demon-possession "theory" of disease a second chance.

Did you even read the article Gonzo1? The Fire Dept. is ready to create their own program, and since they operate the current program, it would look about the same. It just wouldn't be conducted through the BSA.

my posts in this forum are not how I oppose illegal acts by the BSA; I worked with the ACLU to end charters to discriminatory BSA units by government entities, but as the Maryland DNR Venture Crew shows, the BSA hasn't quite lived up to their promise to recharter all such units. BSA officials have stated a number of times that theism is a requirement for membership. My remark about whether the BSA allows polytheists to be members was in response to John-In-KC, pointing out that the DRP could easily be interpreted to exclude polytheists, and the BSA can decide to interpret any of their requirements to exclude pretty much anyone they want.

Gold Winger writes: I do have a pretty good handle on why and how planes fly. So do physicists.

OK, which physicist claims fairy dust keeps 'em up?

Gold Winger, again, do you have anything to add pertaining to the topic, or is your whole existence in this forum only to make personal remarks directed at me? I'm sorry if my efforts to keep the BSA from REPEATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY BREAKING THE LAW somehow annoys you; I know how some people think they ought to be above the law.

Yes, it's different. Physicists agree on why airplanes fly, they don't offer a dozen contradictory stories drawn from ancient legends to explain why they fly. Religions, meanwhile, can't even begin to agree on basic concepts like: how many gods exist, how many wives these god(s) say a man can have, or whether people should eat bacon.

I've found a fair number of HUD grants like the PP council grant over the , they aren't an isolated case, and the BSA didn't *stop* issuing charters to government entities until the ACLU threatened to sue. Even so, there are still some around, like venture crew chartered by the Maryland DNR: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2008/041008.html Crew 202 is chartered to "Md Dept of Natural Resources" I don't consider the BSA to be an honest organization.

FScouter writes: What are some of the laws that BSA does not abide by? Just recently, I inquired into a HUD Community Development Block Grant from Colorado Springs that was earmarked for the Pike's Peak council to run a Scoutreach program. Their Scoutreach program does not admit atheists; I asked Wendy Shaw at the PP council specifically if atheists would be able to join the Scoutreach program that was to be paid for with the CDB grant, and she said no. This violates 42 USC 5309, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion for HUD grants. A similar situation for BSA units that used to be chartered to public schools; in Minnesota, for example, that's in violation of statutes 363A.13 & 363A.14, ,which prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of religion, and prohibits attempting to induce them to do so. By chartering BSA units that exclude atheists, the BSA is attempting to induce public schools to discriminate against atheists. I've even talked to David Park in the BSA legal department in Irving, TX, and he stated that atheists could not join BSA units chartered to public schools. It was also illegal for the Atlanta area council to inflate their membership roles to get a larger United Way allocation. John-in-KC writes: BTW, since when is monotheism the sole basis of belief system eligible for the DRP? That would appear to be up to the whims of whoever in the BSA has authority to state whether polytheists can or can't be members of the BSA. A straight reading of the DRP would appear to require monotheism, plus other attributes that could exclude e.g. some Deists. But as long as unknown BSA execs don't create secret, unannounced membership criteria via internal memos like they did for gays, you're probably OK. But you can never be sure.

They are, Fred; Camp Quest and Youthscouts are more examples. I'm more concerned with removing illegal government support of the BSA's discrimination, such as when Blattman Elementary chartered your cub scout pack, and you stated that atheists could not join your pack chartered by a public school. The LA Learning for Life situation is an example of municipalities distancing themselves even further from the BSA.

Trevorum, from my reading of this latest article, that *was* the question before, but now it appears they've decided they can't do business with LFL if LFL is connected with the BSA, and the city council is checking on that.

Did you even read the article Ed? The Fire Dept. is ready to create their own program, and since they operate the current program, it would look about the same. It just wouldn't be conducted through the BSA.

Have anything to say about this that isn't a remark directed at me, Gold Winger?

The headline seems a bit premature, but if the only question is whether L4L is "directly associated" with the BSA, that's pretty certain: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_9175494 Reviving a long-standing debate, the Los Angeles Fire Commission on Tuesday began preparing to phase out dealings with the operator of its youth Explorer program because of its relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. In a 5-0 vote, the panel asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office to determine whether the Learning for Life program is separate from the Boy Scouts, which condemns homosexuality. ... The commission backed the proposal asking for a legal opinion, as well as instructing fire officials to prepare a program to replace the Explorer program if it is determined Learning for Life is directly associated with the Boy Scouts. ... Greg Salce, a director with the program, said Learning for Life was founded in 1991 by the Boy Scouts in order to extend outreach to straight girls, gays and lesbians. ... That last comment hardly seems accurate, as when L4L was created, gays (and atheists) still couldn't be leaders for the first few months.

Rooster7, lunch wasn't created as a 'cover story' to advance a religious practice; in contrast, 'moment of silence' advocates suddenly appeared after repeated attempts to have prayer in schools were rejected. The proposed laws and/or advocates of laws often refer to prayer, too. But if that's the reason, why don't they advocate for moments of silence during the times muslims are supposed to pray? I say it's because these advocates only care about christian prayers. And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that?

Ed, I already answered that question, you just can't learn things.

Because they're state agents acting in their official capacity Ed. I doubt teachers can smoke in their classrooms between classes but they can go outside and smoke. And if they don't have enough time to pray or smoke between classes, they'll have to wait for a longer break.

Ed, if it's between classes, why can't the teacher go to the teacher's lounge? TheScout, if the founders disagreed with MvM, they could have changed the constitution, but they didn't. LOL

Sure a teacher can pray before the start of class Ed, in the teacher's lounge. They can be in the lounge because class hasn't started yet.

Not when in charge of a class, Ed. They can pray on their own time when they aren't acting as a state agent in charge of other people's children.

Ed, when in charge of a class, a teacher is acting as a state agent again. TheScout, I haven't changed my position. A three-word answer of "Marbury v. Madison" includes the rationale for that decision.

What big problem Ed? You need to be more specific.

What are you talking about Ed? All of the people you listed can pray.