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

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 constitu

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

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

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 th

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

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, n

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 ra

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 read

"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

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 ru

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

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 las

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