Boy Scout troops in Europe have little trouble finding new sponsors

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fred, what I find hypocritical is your whining while your discriminatory Cub Scout pack is sponsored by a public school. The Boy Scouts won the Dale case and can discriminate in any way they choose. Congratulations. Government agencies like the US military and public schools can't practice such discrimination by sponsoring discriminatory Boy Scout packs and troops. If you want to avoid future "harassment", simply make sure your chartering organization can practice the kind of discrimination the Boy Scouts require them to.

 

Otherwise, it simply will NOT stop, and it's not just the ACLU that you have to worry about. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and Lambda Legal are some other organizations that take a very dim view of government agencies discriminating against gays and/or atheists. If you want to avoid court cases, stop dishonestly chartering "private discriminatory" clubs to them.

[dsteele]

Merlyn:

 

You tire me, sir. You called me, in another thread, too stupid to be in the military.

 

Let me throw this one at you and I wouldn't be surprised if you and I were the only two who understand the reference (perhaps OGE as well.)

 

"Life is but a walking shadow. A poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage. It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury . . . signifying nothing."

 

This is your mission in life?

 

Unc.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fighting discrimination against atheists is a mission of my life, certainly not the only one. You don't seem to think atheists have civil rights.

[dsteele]

Sir:

 

I firmly believe that atheists have the same civil rights I have.

 

I also believe that you and your cause have come into conflict and have fought to take away some of my civil rights.

 

I speak particularly of the right of free speech. I also know that you will disagree with me on this one.

 

When an athiest yells at a neighbor for putting up Christmas lights on his home alone with a statue of the Virgin Mary in his lawn because the atheist feels discriminated against by the man's statue and lights on his own property, the atheist has crossed the line.

 

I've seen it happen and heard it happen.

 

Unc.

 

PS -- it would be nice to see an apology for calling me stupid. I'm a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

 

UG

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Uncleguinea writes:

I also believe that you and your cause have come into conflict and have fought to take away some of my civil rights.

 

Which civil rights would those be? Be specific.

 

I called you stupid because:

1) first you asked why the military could discriminate against gays and people who don't meet their height and weight requirements, but not support the Boy Scouts' religious discrimination.

2) I explained that none of your examples are unlawful, but religious discrimination by the government IS unlawful.

3) You continued to carp about the ACLU suing to stop unlawful discrimination, but not uselessly suing to stop perfectly legal discrimination.

 

That's why I said you seemed to be too stupid to be in the military. You don't win court cases by filing lawsuits against legal acts, but you don't seem to understand that simple concept.

[dsteele]

You and I will never agree Merlyn.

 

One should never call another names, like stupid, on these boards.

 

I won't call you a name.

 

I'm done baiting you.

 

Good luck in the afterlife, pal.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Uncleguinea writes:

I also believe that you and your cause have come into conflict and have fought to take away some of my civil rights.

 

Which civil rights would those be, again? I see you're quick to make vague accusations, but not specific charges. I'll just have to assume you were lying unless you can come up with real examples.

[packsaddle]

I think OGE posed a good question. fgoodwin seems to be aware of situations where BSA or local units are discriminated against so if he will supply us with the identities, we can sic the ACLU on the offenders.

 

But if BSA has the weight of the Supreme Court on their side with regard to being a private discriminatory organization, and if the ACLU has the weight of the Supreme Court and the constitution on their side making sure the government doesn't discriminate, it seems like all anyone needs to do is merely to stop breaking the law and everyone can have cookies and milk before bed.

[evmori]

unc,

The ACLU is gonna look like the bad guys when this whole military thing is over. Merlyn & his ilk will have to look for something else to pick on.

 

My prayers go out for Merlyn & all other atheists to realize the error of their ways & turn their lives over to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Ed, I think the ACLU is worried more about our liberties (yours too) than about their appearance. But Merlyn and the ilk (and I suppose I fall into the category of 'ilk' as well) will be happy clams if the government stops favoring minorities with reduced liberties and starts treating everyone equally in this respect. Like I said, all we have to do is abide by the laws (and on this subject the laws are fair and clear) and all this conflict will go away.

[fgoodwin]

The conflict will go away as soon as ACLU decides to stop harassing BSA.

 

BSA is fully within its rights to set its membership policies.

 

So why should schools and military bases be sued by the ACLU for sponsoring Scout units that are doing nothing illegal?

[packsaddle]

I thought the settlement was between the ACLU and DOD. Am I wrong? If anything, it is DOD who has wised-up to the law and is now coming into compliance with it. The ACLU just brought the matter to their attention with a judicial reminder.

 

Of course BSA can set its membership policies! Who is saying that BSA is not fully within its rights to set its membership policies? BSA is free to discriminate in any manner BSA decides. Or have I missed something?

[evmori]

packsaddle,

The ACLU only has it's own interest at heart! Not the public or the Constitution! They are self-serving!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

In general, I think the attacks on the ACLU here have been overblown. The ACLU is a private organization that brings lawsuits--federal judges decide the lawsuits. If you don't like the results, it's really the law you don't like, not the ACLU.

However, in fairness I have to point out that the ACLU does not treat all civil rights equally. This can be shown by looking at the ACLU's brief in the Dale case (http://archive.aclu.org/court/boyscouts_v_dale.html). The ACLU decided that the ability of a state to ban discriminiation based on sexual orientation was more important than BSA's (and its members') rights of free association and free expression. Since this case did not involve public sponsorship, but rather an attempt by a state to regulate the membership standards of a private organization, I think ACLU took the wrong side from a civil rights point of view. Of course, the Supreme Court disagreed with the ACLU.

[packsaddle]

Ed, in today's Adam Smith world of 'enlightened self-interest', I could make that accusation accurately for nearly all organizations and individuals. Except, of course, for those few who were taken during the rapture back in 1996.

In the case of the ACLU, the outcome (however self-serving you may consider it) is still the protection of our constitutional rights as interpreted by the courts. Hunt's right, your conflict is with the law itself. The ACLU is merely the catalyst.