Judge rules for boy in Boy Scouts case

[Dedicated Dad]

I don't. Where'd you get the idea I did? Hehehe, I dont know, this forum is for Scouters, Scouter.com, get it? I guess that makes you not a Scouter, ergo that would make you a subversive disrupter troll here to demagogue the issue and promote an anti-Scout agenda, am I right? And if you are a Scouter, you should resign immediately because obviously youre not able to live by the oath and law. Your only audience here is people who support the BSA and your sole purpose is to trash the BSA for what it stands for, your motives are clear. Listen buddy, this isnt freerepublic.com, so kindly take your Liberaltarian ACLU attorney agenda somewhere else, you dont belong here. I encourage everyone to make his or her feelings known to the moderator. PS, Please can save your first amendment rebuttal diatribe for somewhere else, this is a private forum.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"I guess that makes you not a Scouter, ergo that would make you a subversive disrupter troll here to demagogue the issue and promote an anti-Scout agenda, am I right? And if you are a Scouter, you should resign immediately because obviously youre not able to live by the oath and law."

 

How do you know I'm not a member of the Scouts Nederlands, which accepts atheists?

 

...

"PS, Please can save your first amendment rebuttal diatribe for somewhere else, this is a private forum."

 

Nothing in the scouter.com membership about needing to be a scout to join; it's a "private forum" that's open to anyone, unless it's like the BSA, which has membership requirements that aren't listed anywhere (such as their "no homosexuals" rule that STILL isn't listed in ANY of their membership materials).

[Dedicated Dad]

How do you know I'm not a member of the Scouts Nederlands, which accepts atheists? Nice try, but I could care less. Number one, BSA is Boy Scouts of America not the Nederlands. Number two, Nederlands Scouts dont usually quote citations from Westlaw and Lexis within minutes of a post, who are you kidding? Now go away you troll. unless it's like the BSA, which has membership requirements that arent, listed anywhere (such as their "no homosexuals" rule that STILL isn't listed in ANY of their membership materials). How completely irrelevant, you know better than that. You just spent how long debating atheism and now youre playing the homosexuality card, how telling. Were your civil rights violated? Answer is no, especially if you live in the Netherlands! Private organizations dont need to state membership requirements and those who practice perversion dont meet the morally straight clause of its tenets, if you werent pretending to be a Scouter youd know that. Now go crawl back down your pro-perversion/anti-religion hole and leave a private organization to have its freedom of association. Sorry you have a problem with that but its constitutional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Nice try, but I could care less."

 

The phrase is "I couldn't care less".

 

...

"Number one, BSA is Boy Scouts of America not the Nederlands."

 

So? Again, you seem to be assuming that only Scouts, and only US scouts at that, should post here.

 

...

"Number two, Nederlands Scouts dont usually quote citations from Westlaw and Lexis within minutes of a post, who are you kidding?"

 

What? This is ridiculous; the links I gave were from google.com searches, and not surprisingly, the first few links were from oft-used legal web sites.

 

...

"Now go away you troll."

 

Sorry, you don't even know what "troll" means.

 

...

"How completely irrelevant, you know better than that. You just spent how long debating atheism and now youre playing the homosexuality card, how telling."

 

No, just using an appropriate analogy. The BSA has "secret" membership requirements that it refuses to spell out; scouter.com has NO requirements listed to join, so your implication that only scouts can join would be another "secret" membership requirement. That analogy wouldn't work with the BSA's religious requirement, as they actually state that members have to promise to do their 'duty to god'.

 

...

"Private organizations dont need to state membership requirements and those who practice perversion dont meet the morally straight clause of its tenets, if you werent pretending to be a Scouter youd know that."

 

Sorry, you're pretending everyone's religion agrees with your definition of homosexuals as not "morally straight", which is manifestly false. James Dale really DIDN'T know the BSA didn't allow gays, because the BSA didn't HAVE any rule against it (and they STILL don't).

 

Of course, you MIGHT want to question the honesty of an organization that has "secret" membership requirements. But I doubt it.

 

...

"Now go crawl back down your pro-perversion/anti-religion hole and leave a private organization to have its freedom of association. Sorry you have a problem with that but its constitutional."

 

Hey, you started this thread specifically to whine about an atheist winning a case involving the BSA's bigotry; sorry if you have a problem with atheists actually having civil rights, but it's constitutional, and the BSA has a long road of losing public perks in its future. I know you think the Powells should have just ignored their own civil rights and not filed a lawsuit, but that's too bad for your side, eh?

[Bob Russell]

"And again, you are trying to hedge your bets and say the KKK might NOT be allowed. I thought you just said ALL means ALL."

 

I have tried to state my position that all groups should be treated alike. However, I am aware that there are restrictions that schools can place, and to be honest I tried to point that out, without some absolute stance such as what you appear to take. Excuse me for trying to be less than absolute, where I understand there to be some power on the part of schools to restrict some disruptive groups or communications. I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar, and am merely trying to qualify what I say.

 

That said, I disagree that the concept of disruptive speech or communications will equate the Boy Scouts and the Klan. This is like comparing the Nazis to our attorney general, or the Taliban to local groups, each of which some have done. The stretch is insulting, and the majority of Americans will likely be offended by such analogies. If a school district tries to ban both the Boy Scouts and the Klan, trying to equate them, I would not bet much on their chance of success. If you would like to try to compare, say, White Aryan Resistance (WAR), with the likes of Tom Metzger as an example of its membership, to the Boy Scouts, with such Eagle Scouts as Neil Armstrong and Gerald Ford, good luck. I'll be happy to bet against you, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"That said, I disagree that the concept of disruptive speech or communications will equate the Boy Scouts and the Klan."

 

Both are speech; both have the same degree of protection.

 

...

"This is like comparing the Nazis to our attorney general, or the Taliban to local groups, each of which some have done. The stretch is insulting, and the majority of Americans will likely be offended by such analogies."

 

Hey, too bad. The BSA's official position is that atheists can't be "the best kinds of citizens", according to the Declaration of Religious Principle.

 

Until the Explorer program got moved into Learning for Life (fallout from a successful ACLU lawsuit), the BSA actually saw nothing wrong with a police department running a police Explorer program that excluded atheists. When Rick Sherman tried to join the police Explorers in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, the BSA rejected him as a member. This was a youth program run by the municipal police department, and the BSA insisted that atheists be excluded from that program!

 

Now, you may see nothing wrong with a police department running a youth group that excludes atheists, and where the leadership is required to subscribe to the idea that only believers in god can be the best kinds of citizens, but I certainly see a lot wrong with the situation, especially when police Explorer groups are used as a police cadet program.

 

But the BSA saw nothing wrong with that. The ACLU had to sue, and they're suing to remove all government charters now. The BSA could voluntarily drop them, but they aren't ethical enough to do that.

[Bob Russell]

Merlyn, I assume this is directed to me. I've already stated that school sponsorship should be avoided, so quit trying to make an issue where there isn't one. But since you brought up the issue of Explorers and Learning for Life, let me tell you of our experience here in Portland. The issue of police sponsorship of an Explorer post came up recently, as it has in many communities. Our police chief decided to cut the ties totally, even though Learning for Life does not have the membership restrictions the rest of Boy Scouts has. He felt that the "discrimination" of the other parts of Scouting required this split. After his announcement, I reviewed the Portland police website, and much to my surprise (not really), I found a Bureau run program called WomenStrength. This program, run by the Bureau, with a paid staff member, offers a program only for women and taught by volunteers, who must be women. Now this program is well known, yet I have never heard of the ACLU objecting to this state-run discriminatory program. I guess the ACLU must have missed the articles and television stories on this program, as I am sure that they would have quickly objected to this blatant discrimination by our police bureau. Now here is where we will differ again, because I believe that the program should continue as is. I trust that, as you stated in regard to Explorers, that you "certainly see a lot wrong with the situation," and that the program should be removed from the police bureau.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Merlyn, I assume this is directed to me."

 

You assume WHAT is directed at you? I try to quote what I'm responding to; if I quoted YOU, I'm generally responding to YOU. If I didn't, I'm not.

 

...

"I've already stated that school sponsorship should be avoided, so quit trying to make an issue where there isn't one."

 

Now what are you referring to? The last few articles of yours that I've responded to have been about equal access, not school sponsorship.

 

...

"But since you brought up the issue of Explorers and Learning for Life, let me tell you of our experience here in Portland. The issue of police sponsorship of an Explorer post came up recently, as it has in many communities. Our police chief decided to cut the ties totally, even though Learning for Life does not have the membership restrictions the rest of Boy Scouts has. He felt that the "discrimination" of the other parts of Scouting required this split."

 

Yes, I know; I knew about this back when it was announced. And you don't need scare quotes around "discrimination" to suggest it isn't really discrimination; it is.

 

...

"I found a Bureau run program called WomenStrength. This program, run by the Bureau, with a paid staff member, offers a program only for women and taught by volunteers, who must be women. Now this program is well known, yet I have never heard of the ACLU objecting to this state-run discriminatory program. I guess the ACLU must have missed the articles and television stories on this program, as I am sure that they would have quickly objected to this blatant discrimination by our police bureau."

 

And what did the ACLU say when you informed them about it?

 

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in people fighting for their civil rights, so I guess you don't really care, you just want to gripe.

[Bob Russell]

"You assume WHAT is directed at you? I try to quote what I'm responding to; if I quoted YOU, I'm generally responding to YOU. If I didn't, I'm not."

 

Calm down Merlyn, the rest of the post was a response to my previous post, so I made an assumption. If you are not careful, your blood pressure may need checking.

 

"And what did the ACLU say when you informed them about it?

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in people fighting for their civil rights, so I guess you don't really care, you just want to gripe."

 

Merlyn, I am not griping. I said that the program should continue as is, so I would not ask the ACLU to investigate. Programs that target some of the population should not always be subject to knee-jerk objections. I was pointing out that the ACLU, which automatically reacts to certain types of "discrimination" (there, used them again), looks the other way when its favored subjects come up. But then, I guess that some civil rights are more equal than others. BTW, I didn't catch if you had a problem with the police bureau's "discrimination." (there I go again)

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"I was pointing out that the ACLU, which automatically reacts to certain types of "discrimination" (there, used them again), looks the other way when its favored subjects come up."

 

And what DID the ACLU say when you asked about the situation? Oh, that's right, you never talked to them, so I don't see how you can honestly draw ANY conclusions about what they think about the situation, or even if they are aware of it.

[Bob Russell]

Merlyn, your lack of response and your repetition and sidestepping are growing tedious, so its time to end this conversation. Good Day.