Ed & Merlyn sidebar commentary

[Trevorum]

Gonzo's accusation of fraud on Merlyn's part makes me wonder exactly when the DRP became embedded in the membership requirements. I certainly do not remember religiosity being an issue back in the '60s. I'd welcome reliable historical data from anyone. I sorta suspect that back before the 80s or so it was presumed that BSA members were theists (because most everybody in America was) but if not, well that's OK too, just pay yer dues and come camping with us. De facto local option, if you will.

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry Gonzo I got many more PMs asking me to close it than I did to keep it open. Besides, its not like their discourse is likely to end anytime soon. I left it open at first as I saw the situation was like a hockey game, and even though fighting is "against the rules" in hockey, every once in awhile the refs let two guys at it for awhile becuse the two just want to do it, they get it out of their system, go in the penalty box and the game goes on. The alternative is to either ban or suspend both of them. The forum has had limited success at suspension and based on past posters who have been banned neither of the two come close to that level of behavior.

 

 

[Gonzo1]

Trev,

It's sorta odd, since Clinton's now famous "Don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals in the military, MORE people have been discharged after don't ask, don't tell went into effect. Hmm, I don't know when DRP became embedded, I know that girls, atheists and homosexuals aren't allowed (not including girls in Venturing). I don't care for the de facto local option regarding membership and DRP. There's always Spiral Scouts, Boys and Girls clubs, etc.

 

Besides, it's not so much an accusation as it is an admission on his part. I wish I had the time to find the quote, but he did say it.

 

OGE, it's too bad you closed the other thread, that's all.

[CA_Scouter]

Yea, I made mention of the Bickersons in a long-ago post as well.

 

I think Merlyn has good arguments and is well written most of the time. However, when he goes to name calling and personal insults he loses points with me. Likewise, he is so singularly focused on the legal discrimination issue of the BSA that he cannot see anything past that. M, there ARE a lot of good things about the BSA, despite your opinion.

 

Ed's posts in most forums reflect the opinions of an experienced scouter lending a hand. Ed's posts on political forums are a bit more 'barbed' and conservatively biased. Ed, there ARE merits to some of M's arguments, despite your opinion.

 

Both 'bait' each other pretty regularly. I'd say that Ed is winning the battle, based on M's name calling and personal insults, however I marvel at how they both can get each other going time after time, knowing exactly how to goad the other guy. I think "can't learn" applies to both of them on this issue.

 

I tire of their pettiness though. I had a thread going one time that was very interesting and had a lot of good posts from many scouters until those two hijacked it and I asked to have it shut down. ( 'agnostic scout' ).

 

 

I think the problem with M is that he exists here to poke at the BSA and to attempt to convince us that his point of view is correct. Problem is, though most of us can understand the legal argument and agree with the court decision, we simply don't like it and don't subscribe to his point of view. I do skip through a lost of his posts though now, because he's beating the same drum every time. I can pretty much predict his responses to most posts. You gotta love him though, he's our little Energizer Bunny, he keeps going and going, and going ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[erickelly65]

OGE, So the Rules of Decorum arent really rules, just guidelines since such great latitude is afforded participants here.

[FScouter]

I'm reminded of Forrest Gump's feather. It drifts hither and yon controlled by the puffs of wind around it. Occasionally the wind may pick up, even turn into a nasty dust devil. But the wind always settles down and no damage done.

[ASM915]

"Knowing exactly how to goad the other guy"

 

CAScouter, Maybe they're siblings and this is just one of their sibling spats.

 

Sorry Ed, but we're all brothers in Scouting. Oh that's right M isn't.

[packsaddle]

If this was, in some way, a professional forum, I would say that Merlyn is a specialist in his field. He has a very focused viewpoint and I appreciate the depth of his comprehension and knowledge within that focused view. That said, I may look to someone else (probably Chefy - where are you Chefy?) for cooking advice.

Merlyn's claims that Ed is uneducable, especially after repetition, do tend to dampen the discourse. But Merlyn's basic ideas are clear and seem accurate.

 

I still think Ed is very cleverly baiting Merlyn, exploiting Merlyn's passion for this issue and playing on Merlyn's blindness to the hook embedded in each lure Ed casts. Once hooked, Ed plays Merlyn expertly...until OGE gets out the landing net and sets Merlyn free to fight again another day.

 

I am mystified as to how, after the court decisions, anyone can claim that public schools CAN legally charter BSA pack or troops. That question truly seems to be settled by the courts and protests to the contrary just fall flat.

Merlyn's argument regarding BSA's role in all this seems to stem from the view that BSA could have foreseen the outcome of the Dale decision, at least with regard to charters by public schools or other government agencies. If BSA DID foresee that outcome and proceeded to promote such charters anyway, then they were engaging in behavior that was risky.

Once the courts decided the charters were not legal, further promotion by BSA of charters in public schools as 'legal' could be viewed as a deception on the part of BSA.

I don't know the extent to which any of this happened if at all. But the outcomes and judgments seem clear to me.

[Beavah]

I am mystified as to how, after the court decisions, anyone can claim that public schools CAN legally charter BSA pack or troops. That question truly seems to be settled by the courts and protests to the contrary just fall flat.

 

Yah, then find me one case directly on point, eh?

 

Eccentricity of the U.S. system. Freedom is the default until ruled otherwise.

 

I agree with Merlyn that in general I would expect the courts to rule in the way he describes should such a case present itself. But until such a time, school districts are free to choose educational providers, including the BSA. And there are interestin' cases one might imagine, where a school works with GSUSA or Campfire for a girls' outdoor program and then with the BSA for a boys' outdoor program on Title IX grounds. Now is gender or religious discrimination more significant? Or perhaps a district charters a BSA and a Spiral Scouts and a 4-H and a Heritage Girls and a Scouting For All program. Now is that really an establishment clause issue? Or is that the equivalent of displaying a Menorah and a creche and a Christmas tree? One can dream up other cases where programs were targeted at specific "at-risk" populations, much like parochial school vouchers, where the public benefit is balanced against the risk of entanglement. We are talkin', after all, about parents choosing to enroll their kids in the program, not a "mandatory" program.

 

Merlyn's argument regarding BSA's role in all this seems to stem from the view that BSA could have foreseen the outcome of the Dale decision, at least with regard to charters by public schools or other government agencies. If BSA DID foresee that outcome and proceeded to promote such charters anyway, then they were engaging in behavior that was risky.

 

Issue has nothing at all to do with the Dale decision. The BSA had been rejecting membership applications from kids whose parents rejected the Scout Oath for many years before that.

 

Once the courts decided the charters were not legal, further promotion by BSA of charters in public schools as 'legal' could be viewed as a deception on the part of BSA.

 

Nah. That was never done. Don't mistake organizational inertia for deception.

 

And again, there's nothing wrong with offering services to a public body. It's the public body that has the responsibility to choose wisely. Which might be to choose to be the test case. Like "Bong Hits for Jesus", eh?

 

Da Merlyn and Ed show is fun, but they both stake out relatively extreme, un-nuanced positions. And then shout louder.

 

Beavah

[John-in-KC]

Oh, gad, I'm stuck in a laugh attack.

 

As I read this, a song from Sheri Lewis popped into my mind:

 

Wait for it!

 

"This is the song that doesn't end...

It just goes on and on my friend...

Some people started singing it,

Not knowing what it was,

And they'll continue singing it

Forever just because..."

 

Wait for it!

 

"This is the song that doesn't end...

It just goes on and on my friend...

Some people started singing it,

Not knowing what it was,

And they'll continue singing it

Forever just because..."

 

[jr56]

True, I enjoy their back and forth bickering for a short time as light entertainment, but it gets real old, very fast.

[ASM915]

I talked with ED via PM today and offered to post this.

 

Ed,

I hope you accept my apologies. No harm was meant.I just couldn't resist after reading Local's little jab. I still think Merlyn must be either part parrot or stuck LP, the way he keeps repeating & repeating. The way you kept sidestepping Merlyn early on reminded me of Hillary at last weeks debate. And yes, she is more then a moron, and finally got caught on tape at it at last weeks debate.

 

I hope that in time you can look back on this and say, "That was funny that someone thought that Merlyn and I were the same person, just the opposite evil alter-egos.

 

Again, I my deepest apologies if I upset you.

 

YIS

Eric P.

[packsaddle]

"I agree with Merlyn that in general I would expect the courts to rule in the way he describes should such a case present itself."

Beavah, why hasn't such a case presented itself? It seems that, if it is true that there have been no relevant court rulings, not even Dale, that some school district somewhere would fight this in the courts. Why not?

Why is Dale considered so important anyway, if it merely continues a long history of BSA exclusions? Who were all those kids who applied but were rejected by BSA because the parents rejected the oath? How many were there? For how long is "many years"?

[local1400]

I will publicly apologize to Ed (and Merlyn) over my previous post. They are not the same person, but rather, separated at birth. (Sorry again, I could not help it). But seriously, the bickering should end. Our days are numbered my brethren. Mark 13:35-37.

[Beavah]

Beavah, why hasn't such a case presented itself? It seems that, if it is true that there have been no relevant court rulings, not even Dale, that some school district somewhere would fight this in the courts. Why not?

Why is Dale considered so important anyway, if it merely continues a long history of BSA exclusions? Who were all those kids who applied but were rejected by BSA because the parents rejected the oath? How many were there? For how long is "many years"?

 

Yah, pack, I don't want to get all longwinded about this, eh? It was just quick commentary to counter Merlyn's tendency to be a bit hyperbolic.

 

But for quick answers:

 

1) There's all kinds of things where no case has presented itself, or been appealed so as to set precedent. Thank goodness! Or the country would be more mired in litigation than we are already . Most of da time, people go along to get along. Put another way, there's better things to spend money on, especially if the other side is well funded and can bully yeh into submitting. Which extracurricular program do you cancel at school in order to fight a lawsuit? And why would yeh bother when you can just let the PTO be sponsor?

 

I'd say there are cases that are "relevant" which is why I'd guess that a straight-up challenge would fail. There are also cases that are "relevant" that suggest a more oblique challenge might have a decent shot. But outside a few isolated consent agreements (like Chicago's that led to the spin off of LFL/Exploring) there's nuthin' directly on point. So it's a choice by most school districts.

 

2) I don't think the Dale case was very important, other than it was needed to reverse an odd NJ State Supreme Court ruling. It said that the BSA had a right to expressive association. Well, duh! Da only thing that's made it anything to talk about is that it became a rallying cry for the radical left to raise challenges against a kids' program, albeit an iconic one.

 

3) Merlyn probably has a few of 'em at his fingertips. Earliest atheist scout dismissal was in the early 1970s, IIRC.

 

B