The American heartland

[Stosh]

Some statements are truly "unclear" and are 100% correct. When that happens it has to be taken into context or understood from an alternative source. Once that happens, the statement becomes clear.

 

"During WWII we (the US) fought with Germany and Japan." This sentence makes total sense until someone points out that, "During WWII we (the US) fought with England and France." Now both statements are unclear. While both are clear in the context of history, as stand-alone statements they make no sense whatsoever. Only knowing history clarifies both statements.

 

This works for any statement that is "unclear". The statement is correct or in the case of the example, both statements are correct, but mean two totally different things.

 

Knowing an simple example of quantum physics isn't enough to understand, a short quote from the Bible isn't either. If one were to cherry pick the Bible it can lead to any meaning a person wishes to agendize. "Judas hung himself", "go ye and do likewise", "whatever thouest do, do quickly."

 

Stosh

 

[packsaddle]

Did you just tell us to go quickly and hang ourselves?

[GernBlansten]

Pack, I don't think that's clear.

[evmori]

Great ooglie booglies!

[vol_scouter]

To clarify: In the Dale case, it was contended that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation - i.e. like a bus as was argued in the case. This tortured logic was overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

As to scouts being denied access to public facilities, boy scout groups were being routinely denied access to schools fro recruiting even though other youth groups had access. The congress passed a law that President Bush signed outlawing that practice but it still occurs. So boy scouts have been denied equal access.

 

Once again, read a scholarly book by Gagnon on the biblical stance on homosexuality. He goes back to original sources in the original languages and examines the passages in the context of the time the passage was written. There is no biblical acceptance of homosexuality. He is very clear. It may be that those who feel that it is unclear are actually saying that they do not agree with the bible and wish to interpret in their own way. That is dangerous because then the bible stands for nothing because anyone can reject those things that they do not like.

[Horizon]

"That is dangerous because then the bible stands for nothing because anyone can reject those things that they do not like."

 

Like the role of women?

The sentence of execution for merely being gay?

The stoning of adulterers?

Certain dietary habits?

Owning more than the clothes on your back (and ensuring that the fiber mix is appropriate)?

How about the allowance for slavery (as waved about by Christians to justify their taking sides with the South during the Civil War)?

 

Modern Christianity already chooses to ignore large sections of the Biblical rules. There are humorous takes on this in the oft-forwarded Leviticus email, or the video that came out during the Proposition 8 battle in California:

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

 

You can also read The Year of Living Biblically, to see what it takes to follow the rules in modern life.

 

I agree that Homosexuality is ONE of the many things that is in the Bible that we are supposed to see as an abomination (just like shellfish!). However, it appears that many are willing to follow the primary message of love and forgiveness from the New Covenant, and when that contradicts the rules of stoning (Let he who is without sin...), we choose to stop following those rules.

[CalicoPenn]

The scholarly work by Gagnon is his opinion based on his interpretation of the source materials he has read. I see no reason to accept his opinion as being any more or any less significant than any one elses opinion. Other biblical scholars say that the bible says nothing about homosexuality - that all of the admonitions on homosexuality (of which there are what, 3?) have nothing to do with homosexuality at all and talk about something completely different but that some folks have interpreted these statements wrongly in order to advance their own agenda. Who is to say these scholars are wrong?

 

[vol_scouter]

Calico,

 

There are many more references than 3. As to interpretation because of politics, the politics are coming from those who do not like hundreds of years of scholars.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

To clarify: In the Dale case, it was contended that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation - i.e. like a bus as was argued in the case. This tortured logic was overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

Since public schools were the single largest chartering partner, it was pretty obvious that the BSA WAS a public accommodation; the "tortured logic" was saying that an organization that had 10% of its membership run via public schools was, somehow, a completely private organization that could discriminate on any basis.

 

As to scouts being denied access to public facilities, boy scout groups were being routinely denied access to schools fro recruiting even though other youth groups had access.

 

That isn't a cite, which is what I asked for.

 

That's more unsupported assertions on your part.

 

By the way, how many other "religious organizations" get to recruit schoolkids, often during class hours, besides the BSA? There are a number of churches that would take advantage of that.

 

The congress passed a law that President Bush signed outlawing that practice but it still occurs. So boy scouts have been denied equal access.

 

That STILL isn't a cite.

 

That's more unsupported assertions on your part.

 

If it's "still happening," cite specifically where. You haven't produced one instance yet.

[HICO_Eagle]

Clearly you have an axe to grind Merlyn. Let's see if we can clear up some of the intellectual dishonesty in your claim these groups haven't tried to deny Scouting access to public facilities available to any other civic organization.

 

Your claim is that any voluntary membership organization can't be a private organization with its own by-laws and membership criteria if 10% of their affiliates are sponsored by public schools. I suppose then you support girls joining Boy Scouts and boys joining Girl Scouts. High school GLBT clubs would have to admit Christian or Muslim fundamentalists who want to join in on some of their activities.

 

As to the ACLU attacking the Boy Scouts as a public accommodation, you're trying to have it both ways by assuming BSA is in fact a public accommodation but then trying to claim the ACLU hasn't attacked them as such. Okay, let's travel in the Way Back Machine to 1980 when the ACLU first sued the BSA for excluding a troop leader who took a male date to his prom. Jump forward to 1999 and Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees when the ACLU sued to end government "support" of Scouting (this time claiming BSA was a religious organization and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause). In fact, the Nov/Dec 99 article by Margaret Downey at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Downey.html outlines the strategies the ACLU used for years to consciously attack BSA. The ACLU themselves talk about their attacks at http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/11962prs19990804.html and http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/12263prs20000426.html . In fact, the remedy the ACLU sought from the city of Chicago in settlement was withdrawal of sponsorship of 28 scouting programs.

 

BSA promotes civic development. The Supreme Court has held the inherent public interest in promoting civic development for two centuries. Allowing BSA to recruit at school or use classrooms or DoD facilities on a non-interference basis like any other civic organization doesn't prevent other organizations from trying to do the same. You have presented no evidence that atheist or *sexual organizations have even tried to set up similar organizations and been denied permissions given to BSA -- or Boys and Girls Clubs or 4H or ...

 

Jeffrey Archer, President of the San Diego Atheist Coalition, wrote an article on Jan 9, 2004 titled "Mr. Foley was Right" stating, "When a group meets at the local police station, or public school, taxpayer dollars are used to support it. In addition, the U.S. military sponsors many Boy Scout activities; again using taxpayer dollars." He then advocated withdrawal of BSA's ability to meet at these locations. Guess what? BSA using classrooms after hours is no more of a drain than TOEFL tutoring, chess club, Key Club, etc. The DoD rules that authorize BSA use of DoD facilities aren't specific to BSA, they are applicable to a wide variety of youth groups. These rules are in fact public law as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and are entitled "Support for Youth Organizations" not "Support for the Boy Scouts of America".

 

The ACLU of Oregon advocated withdrawal of "government sponsorship and financial support" for BSA in its Apr 22 2005 article, "Civil Liberties and the Boys Scouts: What Are the Issues?"

 

The ACLU of Southern California says (http://www.aclu-sc.org/attach/g/Gov_Ties_BSA_QA_Guide.pdf) "... the Boy Scouts ... requires all participants to affirm a belief in God and excludes members who are non-religious. Government sponsorship of such a program also likely violates constitutional requirements of separation of church and state as well as requirements that the government not discriminate on the basis of religious views.

 

As an openly discriminatory organization, the Boy Scouts of America has forfeited any entitlement to the special privileges and close relationships with local governments that it has enjoyed for many years. Having decided to discriminate, the BSA should not expect to continue receiving government sponsorship and other special privileges."

 

The fact of the matter is that several extremist organizations especially the ACLU are attacking the BSA on an ideological basis. It has been a pillar of traditional society so they attack it. Their current strategy includes trying to deprive BSA of access to public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations including ones gays or atheists could set up themselves if they wished. The ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and other organizations don't set up alternative organizations, their chosen strategy is to try to undermine and otherwise destroy BSA.

[skeptic]

Merlyn: You state, "Since public schools were the single largest chartering partner, it was pretty obvious that the BSA WAS a public accommodation". Now who is making things up? Churches have always been the primary sponsors of BSA groups, and were followed by service organizations for many years, with schools being a distant third. For a relatively short period, Cubbing was prominent in elementary schools via the PTA when it was still a parent, teacher organization, rather than a political group. But even then, churches were by far the primary sponsors.

 

You also once again make your far-fetched statement that BSA is a religious organization,"how many other "religious organizations" get to recruit schoolkids?" The convoluted logic in this statement has been debated to death here, as well as in other forums; and, just because a few questionable rulings have been made by left leaning jurists does not make it true.

 

It will, as usual, be entertaining to read your strident disagreement; maybe we will be treated to something you have not repeated dozens of times. Have fun.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

Your claim is that any voluntary membership organization can't be a private organization with its own by-laws and membership criteria if 10% of their affiliates are sponsored by public schools.

 

Correct; that describes a public organization.

 

I suppose then you support girls joining Boy Scouts and boys joining Girl Scouts.

 

If run by public schools, yes, I would be. Since they aren't (the BSA was forced to stop dishonestly chartering units to public schools a few years ago), it's a moot point.

 

High school GLBT clubs would have to admit Christian or Muslim fundamentalists who want to join in on some of their activities.

 

Many (probably most) public schools require that all school clubs have to be open to all students, so yes, they would have to admit them.

 

However, such clubs aren't "owned and operated" in the way a public school owned and operated a BSA unit.

 

As to the ACLU attacking the Boy Scouts as a public accommodation, you're trying to have it both ways by assuming BSA is in fact a public accommodation but then trying to claim the ACLU hasn't attacked them as such.

 

Both the ACLU and I considered the BSA to have been a public accommodation pre-Dale; since then, both the ACLU and I have treated them as a private, discriminatory organization, which is why public school charters had to go.

 

[Winkler case]

 

What's your point in bringing up the Winkler case? That wasn't about recruitment, that was about the city of Chicago sponsoring BSA units that unlawfully excluded people based on their religion or sexual orinetation.

 

BSA promotes civic development. The Supreme Court has held the inherent public interest in promoting civic development for two centuries.

 

This doesn't give the BSA a blank check.

 

Allowing BSA to recruit at school or use classrooms or DoD facilities on a non-interference basis like any other civic organization doesn't prevent other organizations from trying to do the same.

 

There's that important phrase, "like any other civic organization"

 

How many other private organizations have get-togethers every four years with about 1/3 of the cost (about $8 million) paid for by the DoD? I'd say about zero.

 

How many other private, religious organizations recruit students during school hours? If a local church wanted to recruit for the Royal Rangers on the same basis, do you think any public school would allow a Christians-only youth group to recruit their students? The no-atheists BSA is on the same legal ground.

 

You have presented no evidence that atheist or *sexual organizations have even tried to set up similar organizations and been denied permissions given to BSA

 

That might be because I've never claimed that; I was asking YOU for specific cites of where the BSA has been DENIED equal access -- and I'm still waiting.

 

He [Jeffrey Archer, President of the San Diego Atheist Coalition] then advocated withdrawal of BSA's ability to meet at these locations.

 

OK, you've found someone who apparently doesn't know the law, who wrote a letter. I have stated the exact opposite (at least about meeting in public schools) in this forum many times, because I happen to know the law.

 

But what you originally said was "Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups"

 

Sorry, a letter to a newspaper written by someone who doesn't know the law does not qualify as denying scouting any rights.

 

The ACLU of Oregon advocated withdrawal of "government sponsorship and financial support" for BSA in its Apr 22 2005 article

 

Yes. That also does not limit the rights of scouting or the BSA. "Private" organizations pay their own way.

 

The fact of the matter is that several extremist organizations especially the ACLU are attacking the BSA on an ideological basis.

 

The fact of the matter is that you are whining about the BSA having to live up to its own claim of being private and getting cur off from public funds as a result.

 

I'll note that you have yet to cite one instance of any rights of the BSA being denied in everything you've written above; mostly you're complaining that the government won't help pay for your discriminatory, private club. Learn to live with it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Now who is making things up? Churches have always been the primary sponsors of BSA groups

 

The BSA listed public schools as their single largest sponsoring group in 1998; "churches" wasn't a single group, they were listed as Catholic, LDS, etc. So blame the BSA for the way they categorized sponsors.

 

You also once again make your far-fetched statement that BSA is a religious organization

 

Because the BSA calls itself a religious organization. Again, your argument is with them.

[evmori]

The BSA listed public schools as their single largest sponsoring group in 1998; "churches" wasn't a single group, they were listed as Catholic, LDS, etc. So blame the BSA for the way they categorized sponsors.

 

Now that is funny! Because "churches" wasn't listed as a single group, the monumental leap was made that public schools were the largest sponsoring group! Now if that isn't spinning the data to fit your cause I don't know what it! And, without knowing what the actual data is, I would bet an outright lie!

 

Merlyn, post the link to the data you used & I will do what you should have done, actually figure it out! And I will report back even if you were correct in you giant assumption.

[skeptic]

Don't hold your breath Ed, unless you like the color blue.

 

Merlyn: So someone who is a leader in an anti-religion group makes a statement publicly that is not accurate, or against the current interpretation of law, but because he is wrong, it does not count?

 

In that case, your continued specious determination that BSA is a religious organization is wrong too; as it has been noted and corrected numerous times that the statement made by one careless person in BSA that they were a religious organization was inaccurate, and not the case. Yet, you persist, as do the leftist jurists. It is a pretty fine line you walk one might think. The only difference is where the statement was made; and that has been corrected by the BSA lawyers since.

 

Lot of odd-ball spiders in your arena it seems.