LA Police and Fire depts. to end Explorer programs

[OldGreyEagle]

"And BadenP - what did you mean by the use of the word "twinkies"?"

 

Heck everyone knows that...

[evmori]

Ed, how does an "honest" organization end up with agreements that tell public schools to unlawfully discriminate against atheists?

 

Merlyn, how do public schools "honestly" accept agreements that discriminate against anyone?

 

Public schools don't have to accept a BSA charter! No one is twisting their arms! Public schools are just as responsible as the BSA! And BTW, it's lawful discrimination, not "unlawful" discrimination!

[shortridge]

"And BadenP - what did you mean by the use of the word "twinkies"?"

 

Heck everyone knows that...

 

 

Well, I know the meaning that popped into my head ... but it made me a bit confused as to how Baden knew the sexual orientation, intellectual capacity and physical attributes of people who disagree with him.

 

Of course, he's probably referring to critics in the "snack food that will survive a direct nuclear blast" usage. Labeling opponents in that way is a common rhetorical technique in some quarters, I understand.

 

 

lol.

[GernBlansten]

Ed, when a public school discriminates based on religion, it is illegal. But you already knew that didn't you?

[boomerscout]

Just because Scout meetings are held at a public school does not mean the school itself is the CO. The CO may be "school name Mothers' Club" or "Parents of school name", etc. Many schools open their facilities to organizations after hours.

[GernBlansten]

That is the situation now, and it is legal. Before, public schools were the single biggest charterer of BSA units. They owned them. Illegally. BSA allowed the charters, the schools made the charters. Both were wrong.

But that's water under the bridge now. BSA corrected it by pulling the charters from public schools.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Merlyn, how do public schools "honestly" accept agreements that discriminate against anyone?

 

They don't. The people agreeing to them are either dishonest or ignorant.

 

So Ed, care to answer my question now?

 

How does an "honest" organization end up with agreements that tell public schools to unlawfully discriminate against atheists?

[evmori]

Ed writes:

Merlyn, how do public schools "honestly" accept agreements that discriminate against anyone?

 

They don't. The people agreeing to them are either dishonest or ignorant.

 

And those people would be the public school officials.

 

So Ed, care to answer my question now?

 

How does an "honest" organization end up with agreements that tell public schools to unlawfully discriminate against atheists?

 

I don't know Merlyn. How did the public schools honestly justify accepting a BSA charter knowing it was in violation of what they were allowed to do?

[OldGreyEagle]

Valid point Ed, it would be very valid if this was a Public School or a Teachers or a School Administration or a School Board Forum, but it's none of those things, its a Scouting website and we talk about issues that deal with scouting (mostly)

[evmori]

The point is still valid OGE. Each party has a part in acceptance of a charter.

[boomerscout]

"Before, public schools were the single biggest charterer of BSA units. They owned them. Illegally"

This would have to be a very long, long before. When I was a boy -- in Boy Scouts -- we were known as 's troop, even though CO was really Mothers' Club -- an independent organization.

[OldGreyEagle]

You are corect Ed, Public schools were wrong to charter BSA units, the schools were not able to disciminate and yet they said they would.

 

The BSA, holding itself out to being on the moral high ground, accepted charters from govermental units that could not discriminate requring them to discriminate. So both sides were wrong.

 

I guess its like saying Bush lied when he talked about (Insert falsehood here) when being told that Obama lied when he talked about (Insert falsehood here).

 

How does proving the other side is dishonorable prove that your side is honorable? If you want to say the governmental units were dishonorable, yep go ahead, I fail to see how that clears the BSA.

 

You have two morons arguing over how many points a field goal is worth, one says 2 and another says 5. Because one side is wrong, doesnt mean the other side is right and at the end of the day both are still morons or perhaps better put

 

"I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus"

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[skeptic]

It seems to me that none of this really was an issue until sometime in the late 60's or early 70's. So, I guess the real question might be what happened to make a "very few" so suddenly become injured somehow by something that really had no effect on them, except in their heads? When did the focus change from what is best for the most, to what is best for "me"? Or, when did "egoism" suddenly become the guiding principal of society? I do not think it ever did; only that the strident few took control, and the masses found themselves marginalized, finally becoming jaded because their voices somehow no longer seemed to matter.

 

But then, I am "old", and grew up when children still respected teachers and adults, when you did not fear walking or allowing your kids to wander the streets in most neighborhoods, when stores were only open late one night a week, and only specially needed business were open on Sunday, and when personal responsibility was a guiding principle in society and the courts.

 

 

[evmori]

Just trying to point out to Merlyn it takes two to tango and by only presenting one side you don't get the whole picture. But then presenting both sides would only lessen his stance.

 

Morons???? That, sir, was uncalled for.

[packsaddle]

Skeptic, you stated, "So, I guess the real question might be what happened to make a "very few" so suddenly become injured somehow by something that really had no effect on them, except in their heads?"

As I understand it, people who paid taxes were excluded from membership in an organization that now claimed to be a private religious club. At that moment if even one penny of that tax money was used to subsidize the private religious club then those who were not allowed to be members were harmed. It's pretty simple really. Governments are finally responding by removing the subsidies and rightly so. BSA knew this would happen and they made their decision anyway. This is called living with the consequences and taking responsibility for our actions...something I thought most of us embraced.