BSA councils attempt to defraud public for funds

[Axeman]

Sir:

 

Does it really honor the hard work of locals who understand the local situation far better than folks half way across the country and who are just trying to do their best by kids? Who knows better what the local need is?

 

Fact is, you can't reach the kids and families in at-risk, high-poverty environments without workin' with the Churches. At least not without greatly reducin' your effectiveness.

 

Argh! You paint with such broad strokes!

 

I mean no offense, but here, half way across the country,my units are in an at-risk, high-poverty rural (semi-agrarian) area. The church that formally sponsored our units pulled its sponsorship over ten years ago. The community organization that has sponsored our units since is very, very involved. We are very effective. We reach 'em just fine.

 

I am sorry that the kids did not get to play soccer. Our kids do not get to play soccer either.

[Beavah]

Yah, sorry there DDibben! I didn't mean to paint with a roller, I was just assumin' context already being discussed.

 

We're talkin' about high-risk, high-poverty ethnic groups receiving HUD assistance, eh? And if you're not familiar with it, da Soccer & Scouting program is specifically targeted at Latino outreach by the BSA.

 

When yeh look at urban and immigrant populations, whether it's school-church partnerships in Philadelphia or migrant outreach in rural western farmlands, one of the key contact points for social service are the churches. That's not sayin' that all churches are going to be great Scouting COs. It is saying that public social service dollars are often best spent in partnership with the churches which are the trusted community "anchors" to those communities.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Fact is, you can't reach the kids and families in at-risk, high-poverty environments without workin' with the Churches. At least not without greatly reducin' your effectiveness.

 

I don't agree, but in any case programs that don't exclude atheists are available, some even run by churches.

 

There weren't any kids actually denied access, eh?

 

There's really no way to say this for certain, because the Boy Scouts' exclusion of atheists is fairly well known, and an atheist family (or boy) may not have even attempted to join a group known to exclude atheists, because what would be the point? Public rejection? So there might have been someone denied access merely due to the BSA's known discrimination against atheists.

 

That's the problem with these tactics in my mind. Yeh do more damage by scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners polarizing tactics than yeh do by goin' along with things in small ways when the net effect is positive.

 

Beavah, how long would the BSA have continued to have public schools as one of their largest chartering partners, while still excluding atheists, if atheists had to "get along" with official, yet highly illegal, discrimination by their own public schools? It had already been going on for 20 YEARS if you start counting from the time Paul Trout got kicked out.

 

So noxious is the effect of such tactics that yeh even get presidential candidates talking about constitutional changes to address such issues - changes that I think most all of us would object to - but dat's where polarizing tactics push things, eh?

 

Oh, if you want polarizing, make atheists official second-hand citizens and allow the government to discriminate against them. You really want another civil war? Because that's what you'd get.

 

When we're talkin' about $5K out of the entire federal budget for a kids' soccer program highly leveraged by volunteers, we're in the noise. Better to spend our time on somethin' of substance.

 

Yeah, atheists HAVE no civil rights. If HUD funds are deliberately misused by lying BSA officials, who cares? Only Jews^H^H^H^Hatheists get screwed, and they aren't popular, so why not allow official discrimination against them?

[evmori]

Do we know for sure the kids that participated in this clinic were required to join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate in the clinic? No we don't. And without knowing that, any action taken is wrong.

 

Merlyn, do you have indisputable proof the kids participating in this clinic had to either join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Nessmuk]

Another example (so typical of the Left) where those who claim to be caring and compassionate hosing up a perfectly great program that absolutely no Left-wing organization would ever take on and make successful.

 

The attacks on the BSA by the athiest/homosexual nuts (technically sufficient terms) have hurt the inner city and under-served programs the most..

 

Leroy dude - you should pack your bags and travel on your own dime to run a soccer league in that state (wherever your from)...

 

I just took out the words I wanted to use to describe you..but this is a rare situation on this forum where I wish I was face to face in private. I would not hesitate the slightest to make my thought loud and clear!

 

Maybe you can teach them to believe "in nothing" while dribbling down the field while these kids look at you and wonder "what in the world" you have been smokin'..

 

Amazing ! And you are Scouter !???! Shame !

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Do we know for sure the kids that participated in this clinic were required to join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate in the clinic? No we don't. And without knowing that, any action taken is wrong.

 

Ed, I was TRYING TO FIND OUT when the Los Padres council pulled the plug.

 

Merlyn, do you have indisputable proof the kids participating in this clinic had to either join the BSA or subscribe to the BSA DRP to participate?

 

The official BSA website says:

Boys in Soccer and Scouting will work on the same achievements and requirements as all other boys in Cub Scouting, earning their Bobcat, Tiger Cub, Wolf, Bear, and Webelos badges, and more.

 

You can't earn those badges without being a member of the Cub Scouts.

 

Nessmuk writes:

The attacks on the BSA by the athiest/homosexual nuts (technically sufficient terms) have hurt the inner city and under-served programs the most..

 

Because, for some reason, the BSA has no shame in misusing public funds to pay for their "no atheists or gays" private programs. When the BSA stops using public funding to discriminate against atheists, I'll put the napalm away.

 

Amazing ! And you are Scouter !???! Shame !

 

I am not a scouter. I have too much self-respect for that.

 

[FireKat]

Amazing ! And you are Scouter !???! Shame ! I am not a scouter. I have too much self-respect for that.

 

You must be a wana-be. You hover on this site just trying to still up trouble. Must have a very dull life. All you end up doing is making a fool out of yourself.  Everyone sees your misquotes for your chest thumping. You loose all credibility that way.  Go find a new hobby you have gotten boring!

 

[Beavah]

Yeah, atheists HAVE no civil rights. If HUD funds are deliberately misused by lying BSA officials, who cares?

 

I dunno, Merlyn. What's your position on affirmative action?

 

If the government gives a preference to a racial group over another in college admissions, radio broadcasting, or government contracts, is that OK?

 

Or is it a violation of the civil rights of the rest of us?

 

Is Social Security discrimination by age because folks under 50 can't retire and start receiving it?

 

Should federally backed student loans be denied to young women at Wellesley?

 

Beavah

 

[BadenP]

Back on point, unfortunately I have seen this happen when I was a DE in my own council, the SE tried to pull a fast one on the United Way and we wound up losing all funding from them for these phony paper units our SE created to boost numbers. Needless to say that two months later our SE was transferred to another council where he lasted for one year before National finally gave him the boot. This kind of stuff happens much more frequently than you might expect.

 

I usually disagree with Merlyn and his anti scouting positions but in this case it is not about taking soccer away from kids its about a lack of honesty and integrity from a professional representative of the BSA. We leaders demand these traits in our youth and should expect them from all scouters volunteer and especially from those paid professionals who have made scouting their career. Merlyn I hate your constant demeaning of the BSA, however in this case your criticism is justified. Remember however most scouters are good honest people trying their best to help our youth, and it is my hope that the new Chief scout Bob Mazzuca will clean up many of these problems during his tenure.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

FireKat says:

Everyone sees your misquotes for your chest thumping. You loose all credibility that way.

 

What "misquotes"? So far, you have no credibility, "loosed" or not.

 

Beavah writes:

I dunno, Merlyn. What's your position on affirmative action?

 

What has that got to do with BSA councils deliberately violating HUD requirements? Would it be OK with you if an all-white organization dishonestly received a grant and only admitted white kids? How is this any different from the dishonest BSA councils?

 

Or is it a violation of the civil rights of the rest of us?

 

You know, you are perfectly free to sue over affirmative action. Many people have.

 

But again, you're just tossing out a red herring. AA has nothing to do with dishonest BSA councils.

 

Is Social Security discrimination by age because folks under 50 can't retire and start receiving it?

 

Of course it is; it's also completely legal.

 

Are you saying BSA councils ought to be able to ignore laws they don't like?

 

[evmori]

Well, Merlyn, your way of find out seems to have pulled the plug on something that could have been a great benefit to kids. Sounds like the same thing that happened to Chi Chi's restaurant. People were getting sick & the media, without any facts, blamed it on employees not washing their hands. The real reason was a batch of bad onions but they had to shut their doors because no one was eating there due to the initial incorrect media reports.

 

Who said anything about the participants earning anything? Do they? Did you bother to find out?

 

Attacking something without all the facts is a gross miscarriage of justice and totally irresponsible & exceptionally self centered. Nice job Merlyn. Are you going to continue to find out & undo it if your accusations were wrong?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Nessmuk]

"Of course it is; it's also completely legal."

 

Just because somethings is legal , don't make it right.. Just because it's illegal don't necessarily make it wrong either..

 

We are all vulnerable to the risk of falling into an ethical wrong-doing.. Not even Scouters are perfect Merlyn. It's interesting that the one who does not believe there is a God expects everyone else to be perfect. like Merlyn here.. The difference is that people who truly "believe" recognize their fallibility.. I won't defend the unethical choices, but i don't know the facts of this case either..

 

I do know that those who commit to an ethical and religious life are most under the scrutiny of those who "worship the world" and naturally their sins will be hoisted the highest by those proclaiming "join us cause we don't worry about bad choices, sin and wrongdoing - We have no timeless standard to be held to.. Just whatever is legal or isnt - and even then its arguable..

 

Merlyn -Go live your deal with Mao in China .. You'll be a prayin' real soon boy !

[FireKat]

Beavah wrote,

Just how many Latino immigrant children living in HUD housing do you really suppose are committed atheists, Merlyn? I bet you would be hard-pressed to find a single one

 

Merlyn_LeRoy responds,

Beavah, if there aren't any committed atheists, there aren't any committed theists, either, so WHY HAVE A RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

Merlyn you misstated the point bevah was making just to argue that you are right. Just one example.

He was talking about a specific group - Latino immigrants.  I guess in your white collar world you have never meet any Latinos. He was NOT talking about atheists and their commitment. But you changed the point to what you wished to see. A big black mark on your credibility.

 

[local1400]

Merlyn LeRoy wrote "Maybe you'd approve of hitting old ladies with lead pipes to take their purses to fund BSA programs as well..." Maybe, after we helped them across the street.

[Lisabob]

Nessmuk writes: "Just because somethings is legal , don't make it right.. Just because it's illegal don't necessarily make it wrong either.. "

 

This may be true. However, when I read the explanation of "obedient" that the BSA provides, here is what I find:

 

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

 

If people think the law prohibiting HUD from funding programs that discriminate against some people on the basis of religious belief, then lobby your member of Congress for that change. But in the meantime, the law is the law. I find it problematic that a bunch of Scouters are making the argument that the BSA should be allowed to ignore the law when it suits them to do so. This isn't a question about whether the program might be a good one; it is a question about whether or not HUD has to follow the law and whether or not the BSA, in seeking funding from HUD, did or should have been reasonably expected, to know that their program didn't fit the legal requirements.

 

There are stupid laws aplenty - we teach scouts to follow proper procedures for changing them, so why should that not also apply to us?