Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

By "them" I meant BSA units, Ed. Happy?

[erickelly65]

Merlyn Well, here's where you can actually contribute by quoting something I've written that you consider "oppressive". I've written a fair amount, so I would hope you can quote something I've written to support your opinion.

 

I find your statements and general tone on faith and government to be hostile in a Prima facie way. Sure enough the BSA has had a sweet deal for a while with Philly. It worked out for Philly too as it got this great building constructed. To me that sweet deal is Philly refused to grant others that deal back in the 20s (In todays world I dont think any government in the US would give that kind of deal to any charity!!) Given the new legal/social landscape perhaps a better solution to the issue then a 200k bill would be to have the Building shared with a variety programs along with BSA.

 

However, even with my above belief, I do wish to temper my statement and agree with you I dont have a significant knowledge of your beliefs and position nor you of mine. While deeply experienced in scouting (~about 35 years worth) I am a newbie to this forum and dont have all the background and history. Given that I should have striven to give the greater benefit of the doubt and been more tolerant in the same way I would like to be treated.

 

As for my thought on Atheists joining the scouts not being magnanimous, to be honest I cant come up with a better answer. To me, there are three options. One, the status quo retaining a faith based element to the program. Two, drop the duty to God elements and become a completely secular organization. Three, develop a multi-tracked program with a religious and non-religious path.

 

For me, the first option is the only viable one. Its very selfish but I want a scouting program for my son that includes the elements of faith. There are a plethora of secular extracurricular activities he can (and does) belong to that allow him access to and experience with a wide variety of beliefs and lifestyles (sports, art, music etc) If you go with option two, then the current scouting program becomes just one more secular extracurricular activity (not without value but not as powerful as it is now (my opinion)). Option three, while good on paper, I believe wouldnt work well in execution (again my opinion given my program background).

 

The only other option would be to create a separate non-faith scouting program. The WOSM may very well require a single national org (ya got me ; )) , I know in reality that isnt the case in Germany. Secondly, there are many bona fide scouting programs that dont belong to WOSM. And thirdly, an atheistic scouting program wouldnt meet WOSMs requirements for faith although it appears programs in some countries have worked around this (Just an FYI) To me a program that follows the tenets and program outlined by Baden-Powell is a scouting program.

 

At the end of the day we have to come up with a way to co-exist that allows all of us (regardless of faith (or lack there of)) to freely pursue our beliefs, not have others beliefs forced upon us and learn to respect that the each of displaying our beliefs is acceptable.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

I find your statements and general tone on faith and government to be hostile in a Prima facie way.

 

So you should have no problem quoting me stating, well, SOMETHING that you can claim shows my "oppressive" attitude, right? So far, you're just making vague assertions. What, specifically, do I advocate that you consider "oppressive"? I can hardly defend my views if you don't at least tell me that.

 

I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support.

[erickelly65]

Merlyn,

 

You wrote What, specifically, do I advocate that you consider "oppressive"?

 

Given my view of equal and fair neutral treatment by the government (which I know we dont see eye to eye on) I find your statement; I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support oppressive. It seeks to hold an organization to a different standard from others based on a religious belief.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

 

Given my view of equal and fair neutral treatment by the government (which I know we dont see eye to eye on) I find your statement; I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support oppressive. It seeks to hold an organization to a different standard from others based on a religious belief.

 

No, it doesn't. The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc.

 

And what did I say BEFORE that you found "oppressive"? I just said the above statement; what did I say that caused you to characterize my position as "oppressive"?

 

[erickelly65]

Merlyn,

I disagree.and as an aside; I believe the courts are mistaken in their current stance/interpretation of separation of church and state.

 

Secondly you wrote The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. but you balked at my suggestion that the program allow any member but keep the same program (as being mighty white of me) so I assume you think that no religious group can be supported by the government even if it doesnt discriminate.

 

I dont mind the current state with schools not supporting scouts or whoever. I wish they would but that isnt the current state of affairs. I'm a product of public schooling but never have been affiliated with a Scout unit chartered at a public school and there are none in my district (don't know there ever were any) so the point is purely a philosophical one.

 

I have no interest in playing the you said X at HH:MMpm on October 23rd, 2007 game. You believe (and let me know if im mistaken) that the government cant support a group that discriminates based on religious belief. I dont agree with that stance and the fact the courts have ruled that way doesnt sway me one way or the other (I will completely abide by the law and that ruling but I think it is a mistake...just my humble opinion)

 

This line of discussion is wore out. You can accept my earlier comments about misjudging you without knowing more or you can reject them. Nothing more I can do about it and its not progressing the flow of ideas on this topic. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump and thats all I got to say bout that

 

[eolesen]

Eric is right on the money with regard to how current courts are implementing their view of the Establishment clause vs. how it is actually worded...

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Supporting religion and establishing a national religion are two different things. It's possible to be supportive of various faith based organizations without promoting one over the other.

 

 

Merlyn wrote "I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support."

 

You're wrong in that statement as well.

 

While an overwhelming majority of BSA members are monotheist, there are also religious emblem programs available for BSA members who follow both the Hindu and Buddhist faiths, neither of which are what are considered monotheist.

 

There are documented Wiccans who belong to BSA, which is about as far away as theist as you can get, but they don't have a recognized religious emblem program (Wicca has no national organization to stand behind the program). That doesn't prevent a follower of Wicca from joining BSA, however.

 

Unitarians, equally about as far away from being theist as organized religions get, are also active in BSA. Their religious emblem program was revoked when they added language inconsistent with BSA's policy on homosexualtiy into their "Religion in Life" handbook, but Unitarians are still welcomed as members.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

I disagree.and as an aside; I believe the courts are mistaken in their current stance/interpretation of separation of church and state.

 

I disagree with some parts of their current stance.

 

you wrote The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. but you balked at my suggestion that the program allow any member but keep the same program (as being mighty white of me) so I assume you think that no religious group can be supported by the government even if it doesnt discriminate.

 

Why should the government support a religious group?

 

I have no interest in playing the you said X at HH:MMpm on October 23rd, 2007 game.

 

It isn't a "game"; I reply to specific statements. A lot of people, including yourself, often talk in vague generalities, but don't spell out what you mean.

 

You wrote "your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith," yet you haven't said what I've said that IS oppressive. If you would state what you were referring to, we could actually discuss it.

 

But you don't seem interested in discussing things.

[GernBlansten]

Buddhists are not monotheists nor polytheists, but atheists. They do not worship a higher being but the Dharma or self.

Yet, have a religious emblem in BSA.

Yet, are not the best citizens.

Yet, are welcomed members of BSA.

Irony?

[DanKroh]

eolesen writes: "There are documented Wiccans who belong to BSA, which is about as far away as theist as you can get, but they don't have a recognized religious emblem program (Wicca has no national organization to stand behind the program). That doesn't prevent a follower of Wicca from joining BSA, however.

 

Unitarians, equally about as far away from being theist as organized religions get, are also active in BSA. Their religious emblem program was revoked when they added language inconsistent with BSA's policy on homosexualtiy into their "Religion in Life" handbook, but Unitarians are still welcomed as members."

 

Excuse me, but you are wrong here on several counts.

 

First of all, Wiccans are very much, most definitely theists. In fact, we are generally polytheists, and recognize many gods. How does that make us "as far away [from] theist as you can get"?. Just because we don't believe in YOUR God doesn't mean we don't believe in OUR Gods.

 

Second, the Covenant of the Goddess is a nationally recognized organization for Wiccans, and they are in fact, the ones who developed the curriculum for our religious emblem. The BSA, however, rather than addressing whether they approve of the curriculum or not, decided to invent a new bogus rule about having to charter 25 units before a religious emblem can be approved. While at the same time, denying every attempt by a Wiccan coven/organization to be a chartering partner. At best, non-JCI religions are treated as the red-headed stepchild by the BSA, and at worst, my co-religionists are ostracized by ignorant members of the BSA who pay lip service to "respecting the beliefs of others", when they really mean "respect the beliefs of others as long as they include my God".

 

Third, most of the Unitarians I know, myself included, are also very much theists. Some of them are Deists, and believe that while God exists, he/she does not interact with the universe. Again, I find it interesting that because their beliefs in gods differ from yours, you are ready to label them as non-theists/atheists. Yes, there are some atheists in the Unitarian church, but they represent, by far, a minority philosophy there.

[Trevorum]

Dan is correct on all counts.

 

Let me further clarify that we Unitarian Universalists do in fact have a BSA sanctioned religious award - the Living Your Religion award. This award was approved by National in 2005.

 

Dan, I think one of the chief reasons why BSA has been so skittish about UUs is that we DON'T have a theism litmus test. There is no way of knowing whether this UU or that may be a theist, a deist, or an atheist. It's all very confusing to the BSA, who tend to like their religions predictably dogmatic. imho.

[CalicoPenn]

Though I hate to contribute to the further hijacking of this thread, I'd like to point out something about the wording of the 1st Amendment.

 

The sentence reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

The Supreme Court throughout the years have interpreted this to mean that Congress (and States and Local Governments) may not pass a law or appear to favor any one religion over any other, or for that matter, any religion at all. The opposition viewpoint is that this sentence means that Congress can't form a national religion (like a Church of America).

 

The Founding Fathers were very deliberate and careful with their wording - what was left out is equally as important as what was put in.

 

Read the sentence again carefully - "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Note a very important piece that is not in that sentence - the piece that, because it is missing, turns the argument that this means Congress can't establish a National Religion on its head. That piece - that one little piece, is the letter "A". The sentence reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" NOT Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of A religion.

 

What does that do? It makes this clause apply to EVERY religion - not just A religion. It means that not only can't Congress form the First Church of the United States or the Church of America, it can't pass any laws that make any other religion a defacto religion in the US - it can't mandate Christian Prayer, or Muslim Prayer or Hindu Prayer. It can't favor any over any others.

 

The second part - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty simple too. Congress can't declare that Christianity can't exist in the US, or Islam, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or Mormonism. Just as Congress can't form a religion, it can't prevent US citizens from forming a religion. It couldn't pass a law preventing an Eagle Scout from forming the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It also means that while the Government can't make anyone pray, it can't prevent individuals from praying. Want to pray in school? Go ahead - but Government can't lead you in that prayer.

 

Calico

[evmori]

Well, Merlyn, that's not what you posted. Thanks for clearing that up, though.

 

And actually, this is a game! You field whatever you think you can defend! If you can't defend it, you don't field it!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[erickelly65]

Merlyn ---it isn't a "game"; I reply to specific statements. A lot of people, including yourself, often talk in vague generalities, but don't spell out what you mean.

 

You wrote "your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith," yet you haven't said what I've said that IS oppressive.

 

I have written about generalities because my view is that your are oppressive to people of faith is built from the general tone, vigor and disrespect with which you have responded to those of faith (or anyone that disagrees with you for that matter) but since it is soooo important to you heres some good ones with which I take umbrage.

 

 

Thursday, 10/18/2007: 12:22:52 PM

 

You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK.

 

Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination. (To me, this defamation is oppresive_ Not to mention being mentioned in the same breath as the KKK (To me this is way oppressive) (and Im overstepping the bounds of reason to not think you have an axe to grind with religionplease)

 

Posted: Thursday, 10/18/2007: 12:36:39 PM

Then you wrote And once again, treating the scouts the SAME as every other private organization results in whining from some BSA supporters.

 

Here you state as fact that BSA supporters that think philly is giving the scouts a raw deal are Whining (You didnt state I think they are whiningyou stated they ARE whining without knowing for certain. I assume you base this on the belief that any view that might support the view the scouts are getting unfair treatment is patently ridiculous) (double standard oppression) You are incredulous when others might jump to such conclusions without mountains of hard facts and quotable references but you dont give anyone else one iota of the common respect you seem to demand.

 

Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 6:47:12 PM

Here you wrote How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you.

 

Sorry but this is just mean spirited, sarcastic and assuming you the first random clue about where Im coming from, what my real belief system is and why I support the Scouting program. (caustic, assumptive oppression) Its ok for you to jump to conclusions about others motives but we mere mortals best mind our Ps and Qs. Plus, MR CIVIL RIGHTS I find the phrase Thats might white of you patently racist and divisive.

 

Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 11:09:06 PM

Finally you wrote

eolesen writes:

I'll be praying for you, Merlyn.

 

And I'll think for you, eolesen.

 

I find this offensive. I assume you are inferring those that pray need their thinking done for them. And what person of faith would be offended by that? (patently anti-religion) If not then your are attacking the mental capabilities of a fellow forum member, equally offensive. (Just not criquet)

 

So there you have it. My list of items. You dont need to agree, I could care less.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK.

 

Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination.

 

I give up; why? That the BSA practices objectional discrimination is evident by people who object to it.

 

To me, this defamation is oppresive_ Not to mention being mentioned in the same breath as the KKK (To me this is way oppressive) (and Im overstepping the bounds of reason to not think you have an axe to grind with religionplease)

 

The BSA's lawyers have compared themselves to the KKK in the same sort of situations that I was referring to with my "invidious" quote - in their appeal of the Berkeley decision to allow the city to remove their free berths:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/11/BAGFIGLHQI1.DTL

 

Lawyers for the Berkeley Sea Scouts and the city answered questions from the state Supreme Court on Tuesday about whether the city violated the group's constitutional rights by requiring it to not discriminate against gays and atheists in order to receive a city subsidy.

The justices asked whether rescinding the group's four free berths at the Berkeley Marina after 60 years was punitive or a policy action. And they quizzed the Scouts' attorney how a ruling in their favor could affect other municipalities.

Associate Justice Marvin Baxter asked the Scouts' attorney whether the Sea Scouts' logic would allow groups like the Ku Klux Klan to demand public funding.

"It's unfortunate, but it's correct," answered Jonathan Gordon.

Gordon argued that the city's refusal to give the Scouts a subsidy that it gives other nonprofit groups amounted to punishing the Scouts for expressing philosophical ideals.

Outside the courtroom after the hearing, Berkeley's city attorney seized that statement to characterize the dispute.

"If they win, the KKK gets subsidized by taxpayers," said Manuela Albuquerque. "If we win, they don't."

 

 

Now, I was specifically replying to how Philadelphia probably doesn't have $1/year leases to other organizations that practice invidious discrimination like the BSA or the KKK. And above, the BSA's lawyers are saying that the KKK's situation would be the same as the BSA's and they both deserve public subsidies.

 

Then you wrote And once again, treating the scouts the SAME as every other private organization results in whining from some BSA supporters.

 

Here you state as fact that BSA supporters that think philly is giving the scouts a raw deal are Whining (You didnt state I think they are whiningyou stated they ARE whining without knowing for certain. I assume you base this on the belief that any view that might support the view the scouts are getting unfair treatment is patently ridiculous) (double standard oppression) You are incredulous when others might jump to such conclusions without mountains of hard facts and quotable references but you dont give anyone else one iota of the common respect you seem to demand.

 

Hey, all I do is argue. I know people like you don't give atheists one iota of common respect.

 

Now, what does the above quote have to do with "oppression" based on religion? Calling BSA supporters "whiners"? Sorry, that's free speech, something I support. I don't consider unfavorable opinions to be "oppression" -- that's just more whining.

 

Here you wrote How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you.

 

Sorry but this is just mean spirited, sarcastic and assuming you the first random clue about where Im coming from, what my real belief system is and why I support the Scouting program. (caustic, assumptive oppression) Its ok for you to jump to conclusions about others motives but we mere mortals best mind our Ps and Qs. Plus, MR CIVIL RIGHTS I find the phrase Thats might white of you patently racist and divisive.

 

Same as above. Oh boo hoo, I'm being MEAN to you by using SARCASM like Dinsdale Piranha's brother Doug.

 

Sorry, that STILL isn't oppression.

 

Finally you wrote

eolesen writes:

I'll be praying for you, Merlyn.

 

And I'll think for you, eolesen.

 

I find this offensive.

 

Oh, too damn bad. I and many atheists find "I'll be praying for you" to be offensive, and a lot of atheists respond as I did.

 

And no, that STILL isn't "oppression".

 

You dont need to agree, I could care less.

 

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