Charter pulled

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

dsteele writes:

If support by the government of the Boy Scouts of America were unconstitutional, we would not be chartered by the United States Congress.

 

Wrong; the US similarly charters racist organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution, which in 1939 refused to allow their building to host a black singer, Marion Anderson, causing Eleanor Roosevelt to resign from the DAR. It is no more "support" than registering an organization's trademarks.

 

Chartering individual units causes the US government to actually refuse service to citizens based solely on their religious views, which is illegal, and which has never been upheld by any court.

[evmori]

dsteele,

I agree. Merlyn isn't really worth the keystrokes, but I couldn't refuse.

 

What about the "In God We Trust" on our currenty? You never addressed that! And where in the 1st Ammendment does it say a government agency can't support a group who will not admit everyone?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[nldscout]

I am curious, I spent 25 yrs in the military, I didn't see any units that were sponsered by government agencies. Does anyone have an example of a unit chartered to a military unit?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Here are a couple on the web that specifically state who charters them:

 

Troop 232, Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas

http://samgraham.org/Troop232/troop232.htm

Troop 232 is sponsored by the 82d Communications Squadron

 

Troop 38, 12 FTW (12th Flying Training Wing) Randolph AFB, Texas

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/7438/

We are Chartered by the 12 FTW Randolph AFB

 

I've found about 50, and that's only units on the web that mention who their charter partner is.

[evmori]

Guess Merlyn isn't going to respond to my question! Oh well! Not my loss!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy]

Sorry, that's the Air Force, they really aren't "military." :-)

 

 

[slontwovvy]

Merlyn, I respect and understand your right to think what you do. What I don't understand, however, is this: if you and your friends at the ACLU are such zealots against discrimination and injustice of all kinds, why are you

 

--not opposing the very clearly discriminatory and racist policy of affirmative action?

 

--not going after the tax exempt status of discriminatory groups like the United Negro College Fund like you did Bob Jones University?

 

--supporting hate crime legislation for crimes against all ethnic groups except straight white people? (I remember a case where a white, straight girl was raped and murdered by a gay couple--no hate crime charge. Similarly, when a minority gang attacked a white child--admitting they did it because he was white--there was no hate crime charge.)

 

--not supporting the rights of the group under seige by the largest mass killing in history--the children victims of abortion?

 

--intent on providing homosexuals with extra rights, rights not equal to, but greater than the majority possesses? (At a school in my area, the ACLU sued to have the school break policy and start a Gay-Straight Alliance. When a few students wanted to start a Straight Club, the ACLU director for Wisconsin refused to participate in the suit.)

 

Just curious...

Slont

[purcelce]

FOG wrote, "Sorry, that's the Air Force, they really aren't "military." :-) "

 

If that's the case then somebody has been playing a real mean trick on me for the past 19 years.

 

For Meryln: Here are few more CO's that you can add to your list, from Scott AFB.

 

Troop 5 - Tanker Airlift Control Center

Troop 6 - 375th Medical Group

Troop 15 - U.S. Transportation Command

Crew 932 - 932nd Airlift Wing

Post 375 - 375 Airlift Wing

Pack 21 - VFW (Pack is a "base" pack)

 

In addition several local schools are CO's for Packs/Troops in my council.

 

If a military unit sponsoring a BSA unit were illegal, then these charters would have been pulled.

 

very respectfully

 

Cary P

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by purcelce)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

cary P writes:

If a military unit sponsoring a BSA unit were illegal, then these charters would have been pulled.

 

There's an ACLU lawsuit against the DoD over BSA charters now, and I'm quite sure the ACLU will win, since the government can't practice the BSA's religious discrimination.

 

Slontwovvy, since you haven't the courtesy to ASK me what my position is on the issues you state, I consider your question to be dishonest, as you have abscribed political positions to me that I have not stated. Plus, most of your questions are loaded or contain erroneous assumptions (for example, did you know white students can get grants from the United Negro College Fund?)

 

Of course, the whole slant of your questions is just misdirection; if other injustices exist, does this excuse the BSA's dishonesty in chartering discriminatory BSA units to government agencies? No, of course not.

[Fat Old Guy]

"For Meryln: Here are few more CO's that you can add to your list, from Scott AFB. "

 

Is it the unit that is chartering the troop or is the squardron welfare organization or whatever you zoomies call the recreation and support organization?

[Rooster7]

And of course, every question was left unanswered...Was there ever any doubt?

 

If it's not a liberal cause, then it isn't a worthy cause...just a distraction right Merlyn?

 

If you want your side to have credibility, you better be able to apply the law consistently to everyone and fight for the other side just as hard. Otherwise, you're just another ideologue. But in your case Merlyn, I don't think anyone ever thought otherwise. You can't lose what you never had.

 

[Bob White]

Merlyn,

You keep using discriminatory as a bad word. It is not. When you tell a child not to play in the highway you are discriminating. You make a determination on the value of playing in the street based on characteristics you determine as good or bad.

 

The BSA's Charter conditions are not percieved as bad by the BSA for the BSA. Neither the Us Government or the US Supreme Court have determined them as bad for the BSA. Whether or not they are bad for a specific chartering organization is left to that organization to decide for themselves.

 

You are welcome to file suit against any charting organization you wish to see scouting removed from but do not expect the BSA to say "no" to any organization willing to uphold it's values and policies.

 

As far as the relationship between the US government and the military I am happy to report that all is well and strong. To date every single court action against the federal government regarding its support of scouting has been determined in favor of the government and scouting.

 

I expect there will be other attempts and I expect the same results. Interestingly enough for the military to defend these lawsuits claiming that they illegally sponsor scouting with tax-payers money, they must use taxpayers money to defend themselves. Still no court has found them to be doing anything illegal. It would seem the frivilous lawsuits are actually abusing the tax payers more than either the military or the BSA are accused of doing.

 

Bob White

[acco40]

I don't want to get into the "Merlyn" debate. Now, let's put ourselves in Ms. Bev Buswell's shoes. Pretend that she sees Scouting as a wonderful program for the youth that it admits but does not agree with the policy that it currently holds with respect to (insert anything here, but for arguments sake ...) the exclusion of avowed homosexuals as role models (leaders) for our youth. I hate the "my way or the highway" or the "America, love it or leave it" bumper sticker mentality than many seem to have. Just what action should a leader take to get policy changed? To me, it is very "Scout like" to work within the system to get policy changed but exactly what is that system? How do we provide feedback or express our opinion "within the system?"

 

This is not a issue debate, but a process question.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Bob White]

Acco, you can express your views to your local council president, scout executive, or any member of the national council board in your area (you can get their names from the council office). Or, contact the Relationships division at the National Council Office in Irving, TX.

 

They will welcome your input.

 

Bob White

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

FOG writes:

Is it the unit that is chartering the troop or is the squardron welfare organization or whatever you zoomies call the recreation and support organization?

 

It doesn't change things if the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation department charters it; the MWR department can't discriminate on the basis of religion, either:

 

http://www.armymwr.com/corporate/regulations/r215_1.pdf

733. Nondiscrimination

MWR activities do not discriminate on the basis of race, color,religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, political affiliation,or physical handicap. A NAFI may not be affiliated by membership,dues or non-dues paying, with any private sector recreational, trade,or professional association that practices discrimination in any form.No MWR facility or activity will be made available to any organiza-tion that practices discrimination nor will any NAFI use the land,facilities, or services of such organizations.

 

Bob white writes:

You are welcome to file suit against any charting organization you wish to see scouting removed from but do not expect the BSA to say "no" to any organization willing to uphold it's values and policies.

 

The government cannot uphold the BSA's religious requirements.

 

As far as the relationship between the US government and the military I am happy to report that all is well and strong. To date every single court action against the federal government regarding its support of scouting has been determined in favor of the government and scouting.

 

Which court actions are you referring to? I can't think of any that have received a verdict.

 

Interestingly enough for the military to defend these lawsuits claiming that they illegally sponsor scouting with tax-payers money, they must use taxpayers money to defend themselves. Still no court has found them to be doing anything illegal.

 

No court has found them legal, either, since there hasn't been a verdict on them.