MarkNoel

evmori: Yes, YiS, and it will continue to be so. I'm no longer a member of the BSA, but please remember two things: 1. The Scouting movement is bigger than just the BSA. 2. The BSA may have rejected me, but I haven't rejected the principles or values of Scouting. I realize that this will probably result in a flood of posts about exactly what the "values" of Scouting are, so let me go ahead and volunteer the opinion that we share more than you may think. The concentrated focus on a couple of divisive issues where reasonable people (and religions) disagree seems to cloud that

This guy in question here -- Matt Hill -- is a senior in high school, and just turned 18. He's also the founder of a gay-straight alliance at his high school and is pretty outspoken now about what he's been through. He has written a brief description of his case and we're in the process of collecting some more documents and news articles about it. They will be posted here: http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/hill If anyone is interested in talking with him directly, please let me know and I can put you in touch. YiS, -Mark

Yes. You're wrong. I want to see BSA return to its roots, where local chartered organizations get to decide for themselves what kind of membership standards they want to set for their units. A lot of those chartered organizations (including the church up here where my troop used to meet) believe that it is immoral to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Which, by the way, I presume you're referring to when you talk about "perverts" -- another example of where you're wrong (not to mention unfriendly, discourteous, and unkind, among others). And Ed, I sign off with YiS b

Bob, perhaps you need to re-read my last two answers to that a bit more carefully. YiS, -Mark

Um... this still IS a discussion forum for "Issues & Politics," is it not? I posted something that was on-topic and that I thought several folks here would be interested in discussing. It's hardly a secret that I disagree with the BSA's current discriminatory policies, but it's a tremendous and unjustified stretch to assume that simply by sharing the news, I was advocating the end of Scouting in our country. And I'll take it from your response that your statement WAS directed at me. But now that you know that it is not, and has never been, my intent to "end scouting," I trust tha

Bob White writes: >Keepin mind that the goal of Merlyn, and Mark, and the ACLU is not to change scouting but to end scouting. I hope you're not referring to me in this statement, because if you are, you're dead wrong and totally misrepresenting my position. I believe that the current political and religious stance of the BSA's leadership needs to be changed precicely because the current policies are damaging the Scouting program in the United States, and have consistently expressed that opinion. I'm going to presume that you're either referring to some other "Mark" he

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 8, 2004 ACLU SECURES LANDMARK SETTLEMENT IN BOY SCOUT LEASE CASE SAN DIEGO TO END SUPPORT FOR SCOUTS (San Diego) The San Diego City Council has agreed to a settlement in the ACLU's 2000 lawsuit challenging the City's subsidy of the Desert Pacific Boy Scout Council through preferential leases for public land in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island Aquatic Park. In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Balboa Park lease violates First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. The City has agreed to req

Looks like the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia is working towards a new non-discrimination policy based on the one currently in use by Greater New York Council: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7538923.htm Cradle of Liberty Council officials would not release a copy of the proposed policy, but they did say it was fashioned after one crafted by the Greater New York Councils in February 2002. That policy states, in part: "All of our members repeatedly pledge to respect all people and defend the rights of others. Prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful discri

Some of the earlier comments here reminded me of this editorial cartoon (Flash animation) on the death penalty: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html Disclaimer: This guy does work for the San Francisco Chronicle, just so you've got an idea where he stands politically... ;-) YiS, -Mark

Also for what it's worth... Ronald Reagan didn't make the Jamboree in 1985, but Nancy Reagan came in his place to speak to us... I think it was a health issue that kept him away, but I don't remember exactly. And speaking as both a Democrat and as a former law enforcement officer, I'll have to agree with NJ that support for law enforcement is broadly non-partisan. The high-profile differences mainly seem to come up in arguments over constitutional issues such as racial profiling and due process for the accused, which might give ammunition for some bumper-sticker designers and talk sh

evmore writes: > MarkNoel, > Where in my previous post did I mention religion. I refered to race. > > Once again twist till it fits! No twisting here -- at least, not on my part. I didn't say that you mentioned religion -- I acknowledged that you only mentioned race. My entire point was that you seemed to be arguing that discrimination against gays is justified because it was different from race -- that people "choose" their sexual orientation (untrue, but beside the point in this case), and that people do not choose their race. _I_ brought up relig

BW writes: > I watched the event televised live how exactly do you think the image was slanted > by the media. The place errupted in boos. The DNC leaders were on the stage and > did nothing to regain order or decorum in respect to the flag if not their invited > guests. Personally, I think that the image is slanted in your memory rather than in the media. As I recall, the place did not "erupt" in boos -- rather, there was a smattering coming from a small number of individuals in the crowd that was otherwise being very quiet and respectful -- as you would expe

cjmiam writes: > So I write: Are you talking about a guy that had sex with interns and committed > perjury while in office? Yep, I wanted him fired. That would never be accepted in > the business world. Why is politics different? and then writes: > By the way, Id say the Republican Party is very strong and united with a leader that > knows what keeping his word means. Would that be the one who loudly proclaimed an immenent WMD threat from Iraq based on carefully selected evidence, or the one who claimed to abhor leaks and then didn't bother for two

TrailPounder writes: > Those speakers aren't running for any office or stumping for any candidates, where > does partisan politics come into this? I think it's pretty clear where it came in, when one of the speakers (Ann Coulter) addresses the group with the following: "The cowards and quislings of the Democratic Party have been exposed as the Neville Chamberlain of their day," Coulter said, setting the tone with her discussion of Iraq. "That will be the historic legacy of the Democratic Party." Speaking as a former Atlanta native and camp staffer for the Atlan

Ed Mori writes: > You can't compare race discrimination with gay discrimination. People of different > races have no choice what race they are born to. Gay people do have a choice. It > fits about as well as a glove fits on a foot! LOL. Leaving aside the fact that most gay folks do NOT have a choice with respect to their orientation (no matter how stridently you want to climb on a soapbox and proclaim otherwise), this "choice" argument still doesn't work. You can "choose" your religious faith. So if we were to kick out all the Protestant Christians (unless they p