Merlyn_LeRoy

bob white writes: Thats ridiculous Merlyn. My parents were scouters in the sixties and they knew full well that publicly known homosexuals would not be allowed as members. Rules that "everyone knows" that aren't written down doesn't sound honest to me. Like I said, at the time Dale was kicked out, he didn't know gays were kicked out, and the BSA had no announced policy that gays were not allowed. You said that the BSA treated gays honestly; I don't consider this kind of treatment to be honest.

[deleted duplicate message](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

bob white writes: That is simply not true. Mark even proved that the BSA removed scouts at least 13 years prior to Dale for being homosexual and there was a document then of the BSA's stance. An internal document doesn't tell the public what the joining requirements are. The BSA gave Dale no indication that gays couldn't join. How was Dale expected to KNOW this? So Merlyn again you show an uncanny lack of knowledge about the BSA. Not at all; an internal document banning gays does not tell James Dale that gays can't join. Why didn't the BSA put this in their membership requirements, if it's a requirement? By the way since when is a private organization required to make its rules public? When did I say it was "required"? I only used it to show that the BSA hasn't been honest with gays. So again you show an uncanny lack of reading comprehension. You are not a member of the BSA, Merlyn, why would you expect to be aware of their rules? James Dale WAS a member, and HE was never informed before he was kicked out that gays couldn't be members. Why isn't it listed as a disqualification for membership on the membership form? Seriously, don't you think that an organization that excludes gays should put that on their membership forms?

bob white answering me: "what has the BSA done for gays?" For one thing the BSA has been honest with them. I wouldn't say that; the BSA didn't have a public "no gays" policy when Dale was kicked out. James Dale actually didn't know that the BSA kicked out gays, and the BSA had nothing in the membership requirements about it at all.

evmori writes: Please define for use what you understand "freedom of religion" to mean. 1) That you are free to hold whatever religious opinions, free of government coercion (including no "playing favorites" by the government, for or against). 2) That you are free to practice your religion, free of government coercion. Note that 1) means the government is to be neutral; having the ten commandments in front of city hall is not neutral and constitutes coercion. Having a government agency owning and operating a youth group that excludes atheists is not neutral and also constitutes coercion. Putting up the ten commandments on your own property, or owning and operating a genuinely private organization with your own money that practices religious discrimination, is not coercion by the government. Note that 2) still allows the government to narrowly outlaw or regulate practices (like human sacrifice) if the state can show a compelling state interest. Also note that laws that only have religious reasons for existing don't pass the coercion test; if you can't find a nonreligious reason to support a law, it has no reason to be enforced by the state (religions can "enforce" their own laws, but not with the help of the government). Since you've advocated governmental religious discrimination, you probably don't like my definitions.

Lythops writes: If we can agree that the ACLU is not anti-religious we should also be able to agree that the BSA is not anti-homosexual. I can name quite a few cases where the ACLU has defended the rights of religious people; what has the BSA done for gays?

I will: Because of this love for freedom, some civil libertarians take more extreme positions such as opposing any public religious expression at all. The ACLU is one of these groups. This is false; the ACLU is not against "any public religious expression", it's against governmental religious promotion.

evmori writes: Once again you fail to see the point. If you would get your head out of the lawa books & look at reality you would see all you are doing is trying to destroy the moral fabric of this great country. I thought your original point was that discriminating against atheists wasn't "religious discrimination"; I showed that it IS religious discrimination. I consider government supported religious discrimination to be destroying the fabric of this country, which is why I fight it. You seem to think the government can and ought to favor some religious views over others; I think it's a disaster.

evmori writes: OK. So a branch of the government at any level passes a law that states they will provide funding to non profit groups who will help assist unwed mothers finding employment. ALL unwed mothers; any groups assisting unwed mothers cannot refuse to help e.g. atheists. Notice that the BSA refuses to allow atheist youth to join its program. Now the local Presbyterian church has a program tailored to just this need and applies to the government for the funding. And the KKK has a similar program. Based on what you are saying neither should get the funding because they discriminate. If either of these programs refuses to assist unwed mothers because they're not Christians, or not theists, or not white, etc., then yes, they will not get funding, and shouldn't. Do you think it would be legal if the only government-funded assistance for unwed mothers went to Protestants? So the result is two organizations that have an existing proven progam to assist unwed mothers find employment would be left out and there would be unwed mothers who wouldn't be able to find work because the government couldn't help fund them. No, what would happen is that organizations that DO serve the ENTIRE community would get funded, and discriminatory organizations would NOT get funded. If no such organizations are found, the government would have to address the problem of unwed mothers directly. Now that's what I call the gonvernment working for the people who elect them! Now think carefully; suppose all of the unwed mother agencies only help Protestants. Do you think that would be legal? Do you think the government is addressing the problem by only assisting Protestants? Now change "Protestants" to "theists" and think some more. Let's see what happens with the Old Baldy council lawsuit. The ACLU is suing them for defrauding HUD, by getting a $15,000 community development grant for its Scoutreach program. HUD grants require a nondiscrimination agreement, which the Old Baldy council signed, that prohibits religious discrimination; however, atheists can't join their Scoutreach program, which puts them in violation of their HUD grant.

evmori writes: I agree with the part about the government not setting up a religion. That is one of the reasons many of our founding fathers left their home countries. But funding and passing laws to aid different religions are two different things! ALL funding from a government agency can be traced back to a law passed by a branch of the government; that's how the government "does" things. And funding a group that excludes atheists is clearly "aiding" theists at the expense of atheists.

Evmori writes: There is nothing in the Constitution regarding funding. There is nothing in the constitution regarding "freedom of association", either, but that doesn't stop the BSA from using that in its Dale defense. What is "in" the constitution is interpreted by the court system, which is where "freedom of association" comes from, and where the meaning of the first amendment comes from. Funding different denominations is in no way establishing a religion. Here you're flatly wrong. From Everson v. Board of education: The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another.

evmori writes: If it isn't a religion how can it be considered religious discrimination? From the US General Services Admin. office of civil rights, Equal Employment Opportunity page, which has a definition of "religious discrimination": http://www.gsa.gov/eeo/newpage110.htm Religious discrimination occurs when an employment rule or policy requires a person to either violate a fundamental precept of his or her religion or lose an employment opportunity. The definition of "religion" is not restricted to the orthodox denominations. Since the provisions under religion include a lack, of belief, atheists are also covered. The coverage under religion includes all aspects of religious observances and practices as well as belief. ... Now, can you point to a definition of "religious discrimination" used by the US government that does NOT include atheists? Got that in writting where it says the government can't fund a group that discriminates based on religion? Yes; it's called the constitution. You might also want to read up on Brown v. Board of Education, Torcaso v. Watkins, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Welsh v. United States, etc. If you claim the government CAN fund groups that discriminate based on religion, that would mean the US government could run youth groups that only allow Christians to join; do you think this would really be constitutional?

evmori writes: Merlyn, You really are clueless sometimes. Read what Rooster posted, not what you think he posted. The BSA doesn't discriminated based on religion. Atheism isn't a religion! So by not allowing atheists to join the BSA, the BSA isn't discriminating based on religion. "Religious discrimination" means a lot more than you think it means. If an organization excluded polytheists, that would be religious discrimination, even though polytheism isn't a religion. The BSA practices religious discrimination; since it's a private organization, it can do that. However, no branches of the government can do this, nor can they fund it.

rooster7 writes: The value that's being embraced by the federal government is - freedom - not atheism. The BSA embraces the same value when they chose not to associate with folks who chose to ignore God. Freedom of association is why the KKK can exclude e.g. Jews, but that doesn't mean the government could financially support it, and I would disagree that the government and the KKK "share" the value of freedom of association. Likewise, the government can't FUND an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. If you'll look at the start of this thread, the question raised was about BSA funding.

Rooster7 writes: Does the United States Government embrace values that contradict the BSAs? Yes. The United States government can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

The BSA's interpretation of its own religious requirements have changed over the years. In 1985, Paul Trout was kicked out for not having a belief in a "Supreme Being", a phrase apparently added in 1978 to the scoutmaster's handbook. This came up during his BoR for Life Scout. In this particular case, Paul Trout was eventually readmitted and became a Life Scout, even though his religious beliefs didn't change: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/God-Top/Paul_Trout-Top/paul_trout-top.html This is in contrast to later Scouts like the Randall twins who were kicked out and not readmitted. The Unitarian-Universalists did not like the "Supreme Being" requirement, since not all of their members would characterize their beliefs in this way: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/world.html So, whether the BSA specifically requires a belief in a "supreme being" has changed over time. Such a requirement would not only exclude atheists but polytheists who don't consider one god to be supreme over all other gods.

"All walks of life" would include gays and atheists, of course.

btps writes: Local chartering organizations are responsible for the selection and approval of adult volunteers and they come from all walks of life. ??? Merlyn, not all chartering organizations accept gays. There are plenty packs, troops and crews that are sponsored the RC church. They do not accept gays. Not all religions aspect the gay life style. I didn't say the previous sentence, Bob White did. I pointed out that "all walks of life" is not accurate, as the BSA excludes some people from the outset.

bob white writes: ... local chartering organizations are responsible for the selection and approval of adult volunteers and they come from all walks of life. Well no, not "all" walks of life; that's why there's a dispute.

evmori writes: ... What is your point? All you want to do is tear down an organization that does good. No, as I keep telling people, I'm stopping my own government from practicing unlawful religious discrimination, and from giving tax money to an organization that practices religious discrimination. ... You are fighting a fight you can't win. You are arguing an argument you can't understand; I've stated before that I'm working to remove government support, and the laws and legal precidents are clearly on my side. Removing all public schools as charter partners, removing all military units as charter partners, removing all municipal police and fire departments as charter partners, removing all community development block grants from HUD is clearly a fight I and others CAN win, because the government simply can't practice such religious discrimination. It would be no more legal if these government agencies supported youth groups that excluded Jews.

dsteele writes: ... If you wanted to start your own "atheists only" club, no one here would stop you or try to stop you, even if you got the government to sponsor it. ... I very much doubt that; I myself would object to the government owning & operating "atheists only" clubs, because that's in violation of the constitution, and I would think at least some of the people here would try to stop their own government from acting outside the constitution, so I think there would be other people here trying to stop it. I actually have this odd idea that the government should not run youth groups that have religious requirements for membership. ... But you're not fighting for equal rights. You're fighting for demolisihing what is there. ... "what is there" is unlawful religious discrimination by the US government whenever it sponsors a Boy Scout unit; the only legal option is for the government to stop doing that. When public schools had to stop reciting prayers every morning, I'm sure some people saw that as destructive, even though it was the only right thing to do. The government can't practice religious favoritism. And it can't "own and operate" (the BSA's own description of how a charter organization relates to its BSA units) a "no atheists" youth group.

Bill White writes: I find it an interesting study of character when United Way funding for programs supporting activities or services for athiests or homosexuals are not challenged by the Boy Scouts of America or their local councils. But funding for the the Local councils of the BSA is always challenged by athiests and homosexual groups. I don't know of any UW supported programs that only allow atheists; many UWs require that programs they fund not discriminate on the basis of religion and/or creed, and atheists will point out that the Boy Scouts do not meet such a requirement. I find it an interesting study of character that an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion continues to charter units to government agencies that can't legally discriminate on the basis of religion, and even pretends to teach students how to make ethical decisions in their non-discriminatory subsidiary.

dsteele writes: The Cradle of Liberty Council changed nothing other than to make public that which already existed -- the policy of the Learning for Life subsidiary that it's membership policies were a mirror of the sponsoring organization. That wouldn't have taken 2 years of negotiation. The United Way of southeastern PA restricted funding to Learning for Life quite a while ago; you can see from this 2002 list of partners on their web site: http://home.uwsepa.org/resources/toolkit/2002/2002_Member_AgenciesRev6.pdf Here it indicates that only L4L is funded, and this is from last year. However, many UW supporters didn't want the UW to support a nondiscriminatory wholly-owned subsidiary of a discriminatory organization, and that's what took over 2 years of discussion: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-05292003-97870.html ... Part of the issue is that the national policy was making benefactors uncomfortable. The United Way took heat from gay activists and others when it funded a development program run by the Boy Scouts, even though the program was open to anyone. "The reality is, we did get some pressure from other groups who said, `This program may not discriminate, but this organization does,'" said Christine James-Brown, the president of the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This month's nondiscrimination statement was the result of meetings organized by the United Way that began two years ago. Boy Scout leaders and community leaders, including gay activists, discussed the issue at length. ...

Laurie writes: This was not a reversal, but rather a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Cradle of Liberty changed one policy only: the one relating to Learning for Life. No, Learning for Life didn't discriminate before, and it doesn't now. That isn't a change; if it DID change, what's the difference between the old policy and the new one?

silver shark writes: [Merlyn] is under the misconception that COs are financially supporting the Units that they charter. This is an extremely rare case at best. Of the 10,000 units that he is against, how many do you suppose actually recieve any monetary support from that CO? Very few at best, and if they are, I'm with him on this. How about the other units that he has already helped to ride out of the program on a rail? If the units are not recieving governmental funds, I just don't see where he has a case. Government funds aren't the only problem with government charters; the government can't give the appearance of religious favoritism, and having a public school "own and operate" a "no atheists" youth group does just that (the BSA's own fact sheet says that the chartered organization "owns and operates" its unit). The charter partner selects the leadership of the unit by creating a committee that approves adult leaders, but this includes applying the BSA's religious requirements, and the government can't do that, nor can they "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements to join. As to the other units I've helped ride out of the program on a rail, the 19th Circuit Court is supported by tax money from Lake County, Illinois, and their Troop 19 was part of their juvenile delinquent program. Government involvement all the way, and since joining Troop 19 was actually mandatory, the government was, in effect, telling every juvenile in their program that they must believe in a god. This, of course, is completely unconstitutional and a gross violation of civil rights.