Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[Gold Winger]

"Gold Winger, you haven't "explained" my motivation, you don't even know me. You've just made up stuff out of your own imagination. . ."

 

That simple fact that you continue to respond to my comments with " . . . but that ain't true!" is evidence that I'm on the mark.

 

As for WOSM, they aren't the end-all, be-all of Scouting in the world. There are other Scouting organizations such as the Baden-Powell Scouts who are traditional Scouts. Please feel free to form the International Society of Godless Scouts.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gold Winger writes:

That simple fact that you continue to respond to my comments with " . . . but that ain't true!" is evidence that I'm on the mark.

 

Uh, no. If you bothered to educate yourself about me by reading what I've written elsewhere in this forum, you'd find out that I was a cub scout and my mom was a den mother. But you don't care about being accurate.

 

As for WOSM, they aren't the end-all, be-all of Scouting in the world

 

I never said it was.

[Gold Winger]

Oh I read your claims about being a cub scout which is even more telling.

 

Merly said, "No, that's actually a WOSM requirement. Other countries have all their scouting orgs as part of one umbrella organization to satisfy WOSM."

 

There are alternatives to WOSM. Many countries have a WOSM organization and non-WSOM scouts so your statement is false.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What I stated about WOSM is true; I did not say it was the only scouting organization. You can't seem to read very well.

[Hunt]

"I don't agree that the BSA was always a private organization; not with public schools running them. And the NJ supreme court had no problem judging the BSA to be a public accommodation. And from what I understand, the BSA built the building and deeded it to the city as part of the original agreement that allowed them to build it on public land. From that point on it was the city's property, so $1/year is a subsidy."

 

I seem to remember that the NJ decision you refer to was appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was reversed. Also, you have a bit of pronoun trouble in your first sentence quoted above; I think you know that BSA was always a private organization, although some units were chartered to public entities. Interestingly, the troop for which Dale was an ASM was sponsored by a United Methodist Church--which may explain why he apparently didn't try to sue the chartered organization, since it would be a bit tough to argue that a church was a public accomodation. Perhaps a better plaintiff could have been found--one who was dumped from a troop chartered to a public school. But since the Dale case went the way it did, and since BSA has moved out of the public chartered organizations, the chances that BSA will ever be held to be a public accomodation is exactly zilch.

On your second point, would you say that the city was "subsidizing" a charity hospital under the same circumstances? It seems to me that it's only a subsidy situation if you think that the city is not benefiting from the arrangement. If you feel that overall BSA is not a benefit to the youth of the city, I suppose you might think there is a "subsidy." Perhaps some people might feel the same way, if, for example, the hospital I mentioned above was a Catholic hospital that declined to perform abortions. It's a narrow view, but not unusual among people who obsess about specific issues without considering the big picture.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, yes, the supreme court reversed the NJ court 5-4, but that only shows that many people (including 4 supreme court justices and all of the NJ supreme court justices) considered the BSA to be a public accommodation, as did a lot of the public. And no, I didn't "know" the BSA was always a private organization, I considered it a public accommodation too, just like 4 supreme court justices.

 

However, the BSA is now a private, discriminatory, religious group, and I see no reason to subsidise it with tax money. I don't consider the advantages it offers to straight, theist kids to justify ignoring the constitution and using government largess to support religious discrimination.

[erickelly65]

From Merlyns post

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.

 

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

 

 

 

My offense to your comment is your inference that discriminating on faith is invidious but earlier you agreed that some forms of discrimination are ok (see your post 0/23/2007: 8:32:58 AM below). So you accept some forms of discrimination but find the type the BSA uses as harmful and bad. Not just bad in the public forum.bad period (at school, at private churches, at the union hall that charters a pack, everywhere)

 

RE: Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

Posted: Tuesday, 10/23/2007: 8:32:58 AM quality

________________________________________

onehouraweekmy, you're the one equivocating on the word "discriminate"; I'm using it in the context of illegal discrimination, such as a public school discriminating against atheists. Public schools can discriminate in many ways (age, for example) but they can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

Merlyn wrote:

 

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.

 

 

My response: You wrote as fact people like me dont give atheists one iota of common respect without really knowing anything about me (several people in my life would find that accusation laughable) and I certainly never have said anything in this forum that would support that claim. I simply am disrespectful because I want to practice my faith and have my son belong to a group of like thinking people with regard to spirituality (and I'm willing to fund it on my own...I'd like to see the government support us but its not a requirement)

 

So its ok for you to argue and say what ever inflammatory thing youd like but I say you have a beef with religion and I get called a liar. Further you get to use free speech as your excuse to call people that dont agree with you whiners without knowing their underlying logic, belief and motivation. That isnt oppression.just proof of the double standard you use to here.

 

 

Merlyn wrote:

You dont need to agree, I could care less.

 

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

 

Response:

 

Sorry but either is acceptable (see below)

 

The American Heritage Book of English Usage.

A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

 

 

3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints

 

 

78. could care less / couldnt care less

I could care less! you might say sometime in disgust. You might just as easily have said I couldnt care less and meant the same thing! How can this be? When taken literally, the phrase I could care less means I care more than I might, rather than I dont care at all. But the beauty of sarcasm is that it can turn meanings on their head, thus allowing could care less to work as an equivalent for couldnt care less. Because of its sarcasm, could care less is more informal than its negative counterpart and may be open to misinterpretation when used in writing. 1

The phrases cannot but and can but present a similar case of a positive and a negative meaning the same thing. For more on this, see cannot under Grammar.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65, I use the word "discriminate" to refer to, well, discrimination. I'm fully aware that there is legal and illegal discrimination. If I need to refer to legal or illegal discrimination specifically, I'll say so. I do consider the BSA's discrimination to be "bad", whether it's through, say, a private school (legal) or a public school (illegal). And if you don't want me to accuse you of whining, don't whine. And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part.

[erickelly65]

Merlyn wrote: erickelly65, I use the word "discriminate" to refer to, well, discrimination. I'm fully aware that there is legal and illegal discrimination. If I need to refer to legal or illegal discrimination specifically, I'll say so. I do consider the BSA's discrimination to be "bad", whether it's through, say, a private school (legal) or a public school (illegal). And if you don't want me to accuse you of whining, don't whine. And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part.

 

Response

So once again you are the master and measure of all. Someone is whining if you say they are and someone is disrepectful if you think they are.

 

Let me play your game. You wrote "And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part. "

 

My response is NO, you have accused me of this so you show me were I have written anything disrespectful of atheists.

 

[packsaddle]

Wow, this thread has really moved since I took a few hours and enjoyed, you know...Life.

But Eolesen, you said something I think Dan and Trevorum partially responded to and I wanted to add something to it:

"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."

 

While the emblem program that Trevorum mentioned does exist and it has been annointed by BSA, the original official UUA program also still exists through P.R.A.Y. I'm sure Trevorum will correct me if I err in my response and I welcome that if I'm wrong.

 

I have clipped the following summary from Wikipedia to explain:

"As of late 2007, the Religion in Life program of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), progressive church with roots going back to colonial times, is the only religious emblem program listed through P.R.A.Y. that is not recognized by the BSA.

The Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization (UUSO) created the Living Your Religion program in May 2005 as a parallel award for Unitarian Universalist youth. It was announced by P.R.A.Y. that the BSA had accepted this award although the program is not listed by P.R.A.Y. The program was promoted at the 2005 National Scout Jamboree and shown as having BSA approval in the UUSO membership brochure and the Living Your Religion Guidebook.

The UUA has stated that the UUSO is not recognized as an affiliate organization. As of March 2006, the UUSO has a stated goal to create a set of awards that are recognized by the UUA and BSA."

 

It could be fairly claimed that the UUSO/BSA award is the only religious award for which BSA has virtually taken an active role in its design - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This whole issue has been discussed thoroughly in past threads but the above clip hits the high points. The low points were delivered by BSA to the UUA scouts, IMO.

However, BSA had neither the authority nor the ability to "revoke" the UUA program. BSA, however, WAS able to disallow UUA boys from WEARING the religious emblem on their uniforms...officially.

[tjhammer]

the chances that BSA will ever be held to be a public accommodation is exactly zilch

Yes, but the chances that BSA, Inc. will be held to be a business that refuses to sell a product to people with religious beliefs they don't like is very likely.

 

And since BSA Inc. has gone to court (several times) to chase off competitor organizations that try to deploy the Scouting program outside of BSA Inc. it's certainly acted like a business. (It's not the WOSM regulations that prevent multiple Scouting organizations in the USA... it's the Congressional Charter that the BSA received, giving it absolute exclusivity over the brands and programs of Scouting in America.)

 

BSA Inc. as a business has been predatory, competitive and very much profit driven. The IRS forms filed by the national organization (they file several, which obfuscates the real size and cash flow of the organization) tell part of the story (the Supply Division, for example, profits are accounted for differently than others). The professional staff pension program was drawing so much profit that the IRS threatened to revoke the non-profit status, leading to the wave of early retirement packages the BSA pushed on its staff four to seven years ago.

 

I'm not sure we (BSA) could ultimately win a legal dispute that argued we were a business. The evidence of such is far more extensive than the few I've outlined.

 

Would you buy breakfast from Denny's if they refused to serve Jews or blacks (or atheists or gays)? Is there any legal reason the diner has to serve Jews or blacks (or atheists or gays)? How is BSA Inc. different than a local diner? (Lawyers with opinions?)

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

So once again you are the master and measure of all.

 

Quit whining. I'm stating my opinion. You don't like it? Fine.

 

My response is NO, you have accused me of this so you show me were I have written anything disrespectful of atheists.

 

Sure. How about "How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor."

 

Also "The sad thing is that those screaming about the scouts stances on homosexuality and atheism don't give a rats-rear about the Scouting program, the benefits it brings to boys and our society as a whole. They only seek to progress their particular agenda and then move on to tilt at the next windmill they find."

[erickelly65]

Let me ask a high-level question. How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? (i.e. ....I will do my duty to God...., A Scout is Reverent, etc.) How can you run a youth program that teaches some youth a resposibility to a higher power is important but then turn around and tell others something else?

 

And if you can't do both at the same time is any program that choses to persue the theistic option, inherently bad because it's selecting a path objectionable to the others that dont share that belief? How can you create a program that allows the religious to operate within their rights and does'nt oppress the rights of non-theists and vice-versa?

 

 

 

[erickelly65]

Sure. How about "How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor."

 

 

 

I never said all atheists did this....just you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program?

 

What do you think of how the GSUSA handles it? For that matter, some BSA units allow atheists -- they deliberately ignore the policy. It's hardly a question of how to do it when it's being done.