LDS membership declines

[Oak Tree]

Merlyn,

 

I get your point here. But do you have any binding court case or law that states that it is illegal for a government entity to charter a unit? I mean, I know why we would conjecture that a court would find that way, but is there any actual law or case law to that effect?

 

The other point seems a little bit more accurate. The BSA in 2005 said it was going to pull all of its charters from public schools and government entities, but possibly (probably) has not done so. As Ed keeps pointing out, we don't have actual data on this, but I think Merlyn's data (from the BSA) is likely to be reasonably correct unless someone has reason to believe that there has been a huge effort to scrub the chartered organizations in the last year.

 

The actual statements by the BSA appear to originate in this article where Gregg Shields was interviewed by the Baptist Press. (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20306)

 

The Boy Scouts of America is removing the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools after an American Civil Liberties Union threat to sue taxpayer-funded institutions that charter BSA units.

 

While BSA is continuing to assess the number of Boy Scout and Cub Scout units that will be affected, BSA national spokesman Gregg Shields said units whose charters will be pulled from public schools would number in the thousands.

 

"Boy Scout troops will still have the same rights as any other community-based group to meet in school buildings, but the charter will not be held by the school administration," he said.

 

The ACLU's threat also precludes other government organizations such as police, fire and recreation departments from holding charters for scouting units. BSA will seek groups such as fire and police department auxiliaries to pick up these charters, Shields said.

 

I happen to agree with Merlyn on this one - that the BSA should not be offering charters to government entities. I also agree with Beavah that it would have been nice to have all the schools actually vote to change the BSA's policies. But as they say, it is what it is.

[evmori]

Wrong, Beavah. Knowingly offering an illegal contract is illegal. Keep trying to apply that whitewash if you like, but it doesn't change the BSA's dishonest conduct.

 

And knowingly accepting an illegal contract is illegal. The door swings both ways. So I guess you are back peddling again!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No, Ed. You haven't shown that any of the law enforcement agencies that have a charter knowingly agreed to an illegal contract; the BSA, however, having been threatened with a lawsuit, has no such excuse.

[Troop24]

Talk about thread drift! What do the last two pages have to do with declining LDS membership?

[Beavah]

Yah, Troop24, it's just da Merlyn show. It's a vortex that eats all threads it comes in contact with.

 

Merlyn, sometimes I feel like I'm overseas watchin' you as an American talkin' to some poor foreign worker who doesn't speak English. Just shouting what you said the last time louder doesn't make your argument any more effective.

 

Yeh haven't demonstrated that the charters are "illegal". And even if it were an unconstitutional entanglement for the public entity to engage in a BSA charter, you are absolutely incorrect to claim that makes it "illegal" for a contractor like the BSA to offer it. Not the way the law works, eh? The BSA's charter is a perfectly licit one for the BSA, and it has a free speech right to offer its charter to any and everyone.

 

If yeh believe in free speech rights, that is.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, go ahead and try to convince any government agency to defend religious discrimination as legal. I'm sure they're all eager to burn up public money defending an obviously illegal practice.

 

And NO, offering illegal contracts isn't protected by the first amendment. Fraud, conspiracy, and many other crimes can be conducted entirely through speech and are not protected. If you had the slightest bit of knowledge about US law you'd know that.

[evmori]

No, Ed. You haven't shown that any of the law enforcement agencies that have a charter knowingly agreed to an illegal contract; the BSA, however, having been threatened with a lawsuit, has no such excuse.

 

Knowingly or unknowlingly makes no difference Merlyn. Sorta like receiving stolen merchandise. Ignorance is not an excuse!

 

And in the same vein, Merlyn, you haven't shown that any law enforcement agency didn't know they were agreeing to an illegal contract!

 

And let us not forget, SCOTUS ruled the BSA was legally allowed to discriminate!

[Beavah]

And NO, offering illegal contracts isn't protected by the first amendment.

 

Yah, yeh see. There you go again.

 

If yeh shout "No" louder, and then throw in comparisons to fraud, conspiracy, rape, torture, or some other ghastly thing then your argument must be better, right?

 

The BSA charter agreement is not illegal nor is it fraudulent. The BSA offering it to others is a free speech right. If yeh knew a thing about Constitutional Law and first amendment protections, you'd know that, eh?

 

It's just so much more righteous to try to take liberties away from those you disagree with, ain't it? And so very hard not to become the enemy of what yeh pretend to believe.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

Bullies get their way, Beavah because they yell and scream louder!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, if BSA charters to government entities are legal, why did the BSA fold up and agree to stop issue them?

 

And no, stopping illegal government discrimination is not "taking liberties away from" poor, defenseless people like yourself. You just want a private organization that's supported by the government. You're calling undeserved entitlement "liberty" and whining when it's taken away.

 

 

(fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Beavah]

Beavah, if BSA charters to government entities are legal, why did the BSA fold up and agree to stop issue them?

 

It was a strategic case management decision, eh? You and your partners can spend millions in litigation filed in a dozen unfriendly jurisdictions, or do a paperwork fix that disposes of the litigation threat while not affecting your operations in the least. Yeh encourage your partners to do the paperwork fix; it's cheaper and gets the same result.

 

You're calling undeserved entitlement "liberty" and whining when it's taken away.

 

Yah, you related to Glen Beck? That's quite some spin.

 

"Undeserved" is interestin', given the BSA's service record to communities. And generally speakin', government agencies especially in urban areas give grants to everybody from Catholic charity hospitals to private and parochial schools to YMCAs and Boys' and Girls' clubs... all for serving a segment of the population which is smaller than that served by the BSA.

 

"Entitlement" is just humorous, eh? Another falsehood. Or do yeh not understand what an entitlement program really is? Even Glen Beck would get that one right.

 

Yeh really need to start your own "angry people yelling" pundit show on YouTube, eh? I expect you'd get a small but equally rabid audience of dittoheads, and yeh could feel all righteous about it.

 

It's so easy to become like da people yeh hate, isn't it? That's what overly self-righteous agendas does to folks. Shame, really. Had folks taken a less polarizin' approach yeh would have had a chance of changin' the BSA policy by now.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Your "strategic case management decision" rationalization is laughable. You just can't accept the fact that public schools can't practice religious discrimination, and chartering a Pack requires religious discrimination. It's dead simple.

 

"Undeserved" is interestin', given the BSA's service record to communities.

 

Oh, I see; perform services for "free" as long as you get some kind of payment in return. Sorry, that's still undeserved. The BSA can stop performing public services if they want (after all, they're a private organization and can decide to do that); performing public services does not obligate the public to anything.

 

And generally speakin', government agencies especially in urban areas give grants to everybody from Catholic charity hospitals to private and parochial schools to YMCAs and Boys' and Girls' clubs

 

No matter how many times you bring out this dead horse and beat it, it still doesn't mean that the government can practice religious discrimination and charter BSA units. You should start your own whining channel on youtube, you've got plenty of material.

[Beavah]

Yah, there yeh go again, insertin' inflammatory and inaccurate words like "religious discrimination" "illegal" "fraud" "lying" "dishonest" and all da rest. When the rational argument doesn't get what yeh want, shout louder and up the emotional content.

 

Yeh should have stayed in Scouting, mate. Yeh would have learned to be more tolerant.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

There you go, can't think of any real argument, so you make vague accusations that I'm somehow not being accurate, while never getting around to quoting something I wrote and saying why it's inaccurate. Just the vague accusations.

 

I use terms accurately; "religious discrimination" is clearly required when you have a private club that says belief in a god is a condition of membership. If you don't like having the term "religious discrimination" applied to your favorite group, that's your problem.

 

"Lying" and "dishonest" describe the BSA by their actions. They promised back in 2005 to stop issuing charters to government entities, yet their own figures show "law enforcement agencies" and "correctional institutions" as chartering units. If you don't want "lying" and "dishonest" to apply to your favorite group, too bad, that's precisely what the BSA is today.

 

"Fraud" I used as an example of a crime that can be committed only using speech, to show that the first amendment does not mean every single type of utterance is at all times legal. I haven't used the term "fraud" against the BSA in this thread, but that doesn't matter, it's just one more vague accusation you can tack on instead of presenting a real argument.

 

"Illegal" may be up for grabs, but I would welcome a test case. Your ridiculous rationalizations on how religious discrimination is somehow magically legal if it helps the "right kinds of kids" (i.e. no filthy Jews or blacks -- no wait, no filthy gays and atheists) is an emotional argument, not a reasonable or legal argument.

 

And you're really protesting way too much on how I'M the one supposedly "shouting," when you offer no reasons, only emotional arguments.

[OldGreyEagle]

Just for clarity,

 

If I go to a Public Elementary School and ask the school to charter a Cub Pack, Merlyn's postion is that cannot be done as the Public School is prohibited by law to discriminate.

 

This is the line about discrimination from the local School District

 

"... shall be subject to all federal and state laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination in admissions, employment and operation on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion,ancestry or need for special education services.

 

 

Beavah says that the Public Elementary School can indeed charter the Cub pack if it feels its in the best interest of the community to do so

 

Do I understand the positions?