Jump to content

Merlyn_LeRoy

Members
  • Posts

    4558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Merlyn_LeRoy

  1. You say the BSA discriminates based on religion & creed. You forgot sex! No girls! I've noticed this isn't a problem for you. I don't recall commenting one way or the other, so you have no basis for saying if it's a "problem" for me or not. And if it's not, why are the others? Because HUD grants prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion & creed; some single-sex programs ARE allowed under certain circumstances, which is also why public schools can have boys & girls basketball teams, but can't have a basketball team that excludes atheists or Jews. Sounds like you only want to fight the ones you have a chance of winning! Sounds like you don't know the law as well as I do.
  2. An analogy is an inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others. Since scouting does not agree with the actions of the white supremists that you sited in your example, then it was not an analogy. Sorry, you really DON'T know what an analogy is. My analogy was between your snide attitude towards me, and the attitude of a hypothetical white supremacist towards a Jew. You "justified" the BSA's exclusion of *all* atheists by implying that my "hostile" attitude was the real (justified) reason, when the BSA's actual reason is plain old religious bigotry; they don't exclude angry people, they don't allow nice atheists, they exclude ALL atheists. In other words, you were supporting the BSA's bigotry by trying to claim that I'm excluded, NOT because I'm an atheist, but because I'm angry. But that's simply lying to support the BSA's bigoted attitude. I was comparing YOUR attitude towards me as an atheist, to a white supremacist's view of a Jew. And to Colomike: Are you really trying to tell me that ALL other groups that get money through HUD accept ALL others no matter what? No, I'm saying ALL groups that get money through HUD have to accept the REQUIREMENTS, which includes nondiscrimination on the basis of religion and creed. The BSA does NOT meet this standard, as they discriminate on the basis of religion and creed.
  3. Your comparison of the Scouting organization and it's volunteers to white supremists exemplifies your total lack of knowledge about this organization and what it does. No, it exemplifies your total lack of comprehension on what an "analogy" is, and what it's for.
  4. How much of your hostility is born of citizenship and how much is anger you brought on yourself from making a choice to reject the rules of the game and then being mad because you aren't allowed to play. If you'll bother to notice (which I doubt), I've been talking about the Boy Scouts' unethical practices of getting public funding for their supposedly "private, discriminatory" club, as illustrated by the Old Baldy lawsuit. The BSA doesn't seem to want to "play" by the government's rules on HUD grants. That's a lot of hostility to carry. Ever wonder why the BSA doesn't think you should teaching children? Solely due to my religious views, just as a white supremacist wouldn't want a Jew teaching his children. If a Jew got angry at that attitude, I suppose you'd brush HIM off as having "a lot of hostility" and say it's no wonder those white supremacists don't want those nasty Jews teaching their children.
  5. Merlyn however did not represent Schmidt as one volunteers opinion, he represented him incorrectly as a representative for the BSA. I most certainly did not. I clearly stated (from the OUTSET, not later as you falsely claimed) WHO I was quoting, and pointed him out as an example of the kind of bigotry found in the BSA. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization when it has members like yourself.
  6. Bob White: In October 2002 in a thread about an atiest scouter who had his membership removed, Merlyn repeatedly referenced a high ranking spokesman for the BSA. As the thread progressed it turned out he was refering to a local volunteer named Glen Scmidt. Uh, no. My first mention was here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=19496&p=4 Where I wrote this: "Anybody that doesn't believe in god isn't a good citizen, and that if an atheist found a wallet on the ground they would pick it up, plunder the money and throw the wallet back on the ground." --Glen Schmidt, Chief Seattle Dist. Comm. Chair You'll note I identified him by name immediately, it didn't "become known" later in the thread, as you claim. Glen is a District Chairman, not high ranking, there are about a thousand District executives in the country. That seems to be a difference of opinion on what "high ranking" means; there are hundreds of members of the House, but I'd still say each member is a high ranking government official. Glen is not a BSA spokesman, And I don't see where I called him a BSA spokesman; I know the BSA's official spokesman has been Gregg Shields for many years. he is not even a BSA professional and he has no authority to speak for the BSA. And I didn't say he was officially speaking for the BSA; I used him as an example of BSA bigotry against atheists. Merlyn also speaks of a District Commissioner Chair, and there is no such position. I said that once or twice, mistakenly expanding the "comm." abbreviation to "commissioner" instead of "committee". And if you're still worried about me "wasting" my time here, don't worry, I've been keeping very busy lately.
  7. Ed mori: merlyn, in your one post you state "the KKK legally discriminates, yet it would be just as legal for them to use a HUD grant to solicit membership in THEIR club." Why is this legal & the BSA use of the same funds illegal? I said "it would be JUST AS LEGAL" (as the BSA's use of a HUD grant). If the BSA (a private, discriminatory club) can use a HUD grant to solicit membership in their club, so can the KKK, as they are another private, discriminatory club.
  8. You write posts to people who cannot affect your goals, You call the ACLU to get them to take action for you. You collect articles about people who actually invest their time and resources in taking action. It's like the relative who sits by the scanner and listens to the police calls and imagines he is there fighting the crime with them instead of just sitting at home while the real officers do the work. No, I've actually done real work for the ACLUs I mentioned. And I would think there are SOME people here who might have some responsibilities in BSA councils, and a fraud lawsuit against Old Baldy (or the DA considering criminal charges in the Circle Ten fraudulent membership count in Texas) might make them actually consider if their council should sign a nondiscrimination agreement that they obviously can't follow.
  9. Well now we are getting somewhere. Lets not even dwell on the all-white thing because there are hundreds of thousands of scouts and scouters in this nation that are not Caucasian. No, lets dwell on it. You do know what an "analogy" is, don't you? You seem to dismiss my analogy by saying there are non-white Scouts, which completely misses the point of an analogy. Do you think it would be lawful for the government to support an all-white youth group by chartering units (assuming the chartering process is the same as the BSA's)? That is, a government agency signs a charter agreement which includes enforcing the all-white organization's membership policy - the government agency will run a youth group, and exclude non-whites. Do you think it would be lawful for this organization to apply for a HUD grant to try and raise members, even though the HUD grant explicitly has nondiscrimination requirements attached? Finally, do you think nonwhites might try to stop the above acts? It's the same with the BSA and its religious discrimination. Lets stick to your goal. Everyone in life chooses a set of principles to live by. They are the constant unalterable truths we choose to govern every decision we make. For those of us who are scouts and scouters and even for many who aren't we accept the ideals of the scout oath and law to be those principles. That is neither right nor wrong that is just personal choice. Your life is governed by the principles you have selected. This has nothing to do with my stated goals of eliminating government support of a religiously discriminatory organization like the Boy Scouts. ... Whether or not you believe in God I hope you could agree that by following the principles of the 10 commandments one would do no harm to others and would probably make life pleasant for those around them. Uh, no. I've seen PLENTY of harm by people who claim they live by the 10 commandments. This is what I'm getting to Merlyn, you are letting others live your life and achieve your goals instead of you. Really stop to think about what you have said here. Your principles have determined that scouting is bad, we are liars, we discriminate, we break laws. So those principles have led you to the action of posting on this board. Your goal is to remove government funding from the BSA. Now be honest Merlyn, who on this board has that power? Who on this board by reading your posts will help you achieve your goals? Look at Glen Goodwin a person who probably shares many of the same principles you do and who has the same goals you have. Glen is taking actions that actually move toward his goal. You seem to think this is all I do; I've actually been helping both the S. California ACLU and the Illinois ACLU in their lawsuits against the BSA. When the Old Baldy council got the grant, I was in contact with the ACLU. I've found dozens of BSA units illegally chartered by government agencies and brought them to the attention of those states' ACLU affiliates. Believe me, I'm doing a lot more than you see here. The mission of scouting is to give young people the tools to make ethical decisions for their lifetime based on the principles found in the scout Oath and Law. We teach them to set goals and to take actions to meet those goals. The very thing lacking in your life could have been gained as a scout. Ah, now the insults. I'm apparently "lacking" ethical decisions? Are these decisions like Old Baldy defrauding HUD? Like the BSA dishonestly chartering BSA units to government agencies? By the way, I don't consider the BSA to be teaching ethics, since their Declaration of Religious Principle says that only theists can be the best kinds of citizens; atheists, apparently, can't be. That kind of religious bigotry isn't ethical. My purpose in asking for you goals was two fold. That everyone here understood that there was nothing positive or productive in your actions, but secondly and most importantly was to help you understand that you owe it to yourself to do something with the principles you hold and the goals you hope to attain. Your current actions will never bring you the legacy you want. You're just trying to get me to shut up; sorry, it won't work. I'll continue to expose the BSA's religious bigotry where I find it, and maybe a few scouters (not you, obviously) will reconsider belonging to the unethical and dishonest organization that the BSA has become.
  10. My goal is to remove all government BSA charters and all government funding of the BSA; it's unlawful for the government to charter BSA units, just as it would be unlawful for it to charter all-white youth groups, or fund them.
  11. I have answered your question, many times; I'm an advocate for atheists' rights. You just don't like my answer.
  12. "They lied about the use of this money," that is a personal opinion and not a legal fact. The courts have not ruled on this and since the question seems to be over whether or not the BSA practices "illegal discrimination" and the Supreme Court has has already ruled that the membership practices are not illegal then it is highly likely that Mr. Goodwin's personal opinion will remain just that and not a legal triumph. Very unlikely; the KKK legally discriminates, yet it would be just as legal for them to use a HUD grant to solicit membership in THEIR club. This isn't about the BSA as a private, discriminatory organization; it's about using public tax money in the form of a HUD grant, which comes with very stringent nondiscrimination strings attached for the USE of that money, and violating the terms of using that money.
  13. NJScouter: Under federal law, discrimination against atheists constitutes discrimination on the basis of "religion." I am not sure if this is true under the law of all states; my suspicion would be, yes in some, no in others. It's true under the law in all states, since the first admendment applies to state governments (via the XIV amendment), and the supreme court has ruled that discrimination against atheists is included.
  14. What is your point Merlyn? You haven't proven that the BSA did anything wgong. The courts haven't determined that hte BSA did anything wrong. All you have is 'Hey look! This guy says the BSA lied!' Isn't it obvious that they did? Accepting the money required that they sign a nondiscrimination agreement, yet they discriminate. They don't admit atheists or gays. By the way when last we chatted we were waiting for you to answer a question. As a non-member of the BSA what do you hope to accomplish by posting here? I've stated before, I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization that fraudulently uses public money to further their private discrimination. You have shown you have little to no knowledge of our mission, aims and methods and you have shown an alarming lack of knowledge on the volunteer and professional structure of the organization. Where? What, exactly, have I posted that shows this? You post lawsuits as if they were court decisions. Now this is just a lie; I say right in the subject line "ACLU sues Old Baldy council" and give extensive references to it as A LAWSUIT. Like I said, I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization.
  15. A couple of news stories on it; LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/526o Press-Enterprise: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_NEWS_nbscout29.f105.html And the ACLU press release: http://www.aclu-sc.org/news/releases/20030128bsafalseclaimsact.shtml From the LA Times: ... The lawsuit filed by Glenn Goodwin, a board member of the ACLU Southern California, challenges a $15,000 federal grant from San Bernardino County to the Old Baldy Council of Boy Scouts. "They lied about the use of this money," said Goodwin. "They use public monies that go on to discriminate against gays and lesbians, discriminate against religious nonbelievers." ... County officials defended giving the Scouts public money. The grants are monitored regularly and were approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides the Community Development Block Grants, the source of the $15,000. The money is for Boy Scout recruiting at nine middle and elementary schools, mostly Montclair, where more than half the students qualify for federally-subsidized free or reduced-price lunches. ... When the grant was approved a couple of years ago, I actually contacted Susan Williamson, the Old Baldy council spokesperson, asking her how the Old Baldy council intended to follow the nondiscrimination requirements of a federal HUD grant; all she wanted to know was how I got her email address (which was on the Old Baldy council's web page, and still is); she never answered my question. Does anyone want to suggest that the Old Baldy council admits gays and atheists?
  16. We talk so much about the dangers of smoking and drinking, but a few years ago there was a statistic that showed the average gay person didn't live to see 40. That "statistic" was by Paul Cameron, a fraudulent and long-discredited researcher who was thrown out of the American Psychological Association over 15 years ago. There's a good reason his statistics aren't talked about; they're clearly bogus: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
  17. Do you really think that the test for being "avowed" is acknowledgement? Yes, as kwc57 stated later in the thread, that's what the word means. If the BSA didn't mean "avowed homosexuals", they could've stated their policy as "The BSA reaffirmed its view that a homosexual cannot serve as a role model etc etc". That policy would exclude avowed and unavowed gays, but apparently that isn't their policy.
  18. ScoutParent quotes BSA policy: "The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual..." In keeping his real name and identity secret, tjhammer is not an avowed homosexual; the BSA based its case on their claim that having known gays as leaders conflicted with the message they wanted to send, but since tjhammer is not known to be gay in "real life", he's still in line with BSA policy.
  19. kwc57: Under this policy, you can even be a Raelian and believe that aliens created life on Earth thru genetic engineering and still be a Scout. That's actually an interesting question; the Raelians believe aliens created humans, but they are also an explicitly atheist religion: http://www.rael.org/int/english/philosophy/summary/body_summary.html ... Following the extra-terrestrial's instructions, Rael established the Raelian Movement, an international organization to bring together anyone who wishes to help. It is an atheist, non-profit, spiritual organisation; "atheist" because it demystifies the old concept of god, "spiritual" because it links us with our creators and infinity, and "non-profit" because no member gets paid any salary, not even Rael himself. ... Gods in Raelian theology are just powerful aliens. I'm pretty sure some people would think they do qualify, and some would think they don't qualify; I think it's a good example of how the BSA really isn't nonsectarian, and how its religious requirements force scout leaders to judge a member's religion (and whether it meets the BSA's standard), and how the BSA isn't following its own rule about respecting other people's religions.
  20. Rooster7: That is, for a given trial, a "hot shot" lawyer might be able to make a valid point against a particular judge that he "could be" bias because he belongs to a particular organization. However, to decree that no one who belongs to the BSA is qualified for the judgeship is not only overkill, it's dishonest and a blatant example of partisan politics. The partisan politics occurred when a special exemption was added to their nondiscrimination policy to allow judges to be members of "nonprofit youth organizations". Right now, a CA judge can't be a member of a whites-only group - unless it's a "nonprofit youth organization". They can't be members of groups that allow everyone except Jews - unless it's a "nonprofit youth organization". They CAN belong to groups that practice such discrimination only if they are a "nonprofit youth organization". It's a blanket exemption. But it's an exemption without reason; if they really want to guard against even the mere appearance of prejudice or bias, they have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The exemption has no purpose but to allow memberships which would be prohibited under other circumstances. Why are judges prohibited from being members in an adult organization that discriminates on the basis of race, but it's OK if it's a youth group (presumably teaching youth that racial discrimination is OK by example)? If you like, you can replace race with sexual orientation and Jews with atheists in my above examples, but that doesn't change the principle involved; the ethics rules, as written now, allow all of them. And people are starting to ask why is there an exemption for youth groups, if it's a generally applicable ethics principle.
  21. You'll have to point out the "good" in a youth program that has as a central tenet that only theists can be "the best kinds of citizens" (and it's particularly egregious when the government unlawfully charters such discriminatory units). Any good done by a program that promotes such discrimination is completely undercut by it, much as a "character building youth program" that admits all religions (except those Jews over there).
  22. Hey, don't blame me for this mess; people who wanted government religious symbols on public property succeeded in arguing that menorahs and christmas trees are 'secular', so the school is simply following a policy of only allowing 'secular' decorations.
  23. >Merlyn, what will you do this thursday and why? Eat a lot with my wife's family. Why do Christians celebrate pagan holidays like Saturnalia during winter solstice, and the spring festival for the goddess Eostre/Ostara celebrated on the first sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, using her fertility symbols like rabbits and eggs?
  24. OGE: >First things first, who has 2 days in the pool until merlyn leroy enters the fray? Two days? I'm insulted. >next, I wonder why Mr Newdow didnt include military chaplains as well. You can ask him at http://www.restorethepledge.com if you want. ... >What I dont understand is how "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" came to mean all that I just wrote. >If a governmental unit passed a law that only Baptists could be mayor, that only Methodists could be policemen and you had to be Jewish to be a fireman, then I could understand. The amendment says "... No law..." What law is created if a governmental unit puts up a Creche, and Hannukah and Ramadan displays. You can read the recent decision striking down judge moore's ten commandments: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf It goes into the reasoning of how Moore's actions fall under the prohibitions of "no law"; basically, when he's acting in his capacity as a judge, he's acting under the laws the alabama state legislature passed to give him that authority. >I thought a law was something either you had to do, or something you couldnt do. The law also spells out what public officials can do, but such laws can't grant powers that the legislative body itself doesn't have; the alabama state legislature couldn't pass a law to put up the 10 commandments in the alabama supreme court, and the laws passed giving the chief justice the authority to decorate the court can't give him the power to do that, either. >Having Boy Scouts get free mooring in a marina because they gave rocks for fill is not a law, its a tit for tat, payment for services/goods rendered, how does a law figure in the mix? Apparently, Berkeley decided to stop that deal. Now they only offer free berths to organizations that meet the city's nondiscrimination requirements. The BSA claimed that doing this was unlawful, but the court didn't agree with them.
  25. >If federal government entanglement with the Boy Scouts of America violates the establishment clause, what is the story on the federal holiday of Thanksgiving? When the federal government charters a Boy Scout unit, it's running a youth group that excludes atheists; any atheist boy that wants to join will be refused membership, and the government can't do that. If the federal government granted some days off only to theists, your analogy would be more apt, and that too would be unlawful. As it stands, I think companies & government agencies ought to have all holidays as floating holidays and let the employees decide what days they get off; currently, Jews have to take personal holidays for Yom Kippur but get Dec. 25th off, essentially forcing non-Christians to take days off of the majority religion and losing some of their vacation days to take holidays that have real religious meaning to them. It's too bad some people want their religion promoted by the government at other people's expense, but such philistines have existed all through history. I'd suggest working towards a government that treats all people equally, instead of promoting religion, even if that promotion currently matches your own views; the government might not always be promoting your views. If "under god" is constitutional, so is "under no gods"; if you don't want one, fight against both. PS: I happen to work for a company that gets every other friday off, so I get quite a few extra days off.
×
×
  • Create New...