NJCubScouter

In addition to the Holy Scriptures, there is another book which is under greater attack every day from those who detest the very thought of moral principles and the rule of authority of a righteous nature. And that is the Handbook of the Boy Scouts of America, which presents the pledge which each member of the Boy Scouts is expected to live up to. Complete nonsense. In reality, the Boy Scouts and its handbook is under attack from those who have hijacked the Scouting movement to promote their own ideology of exclusion of people they don't like. I'll stack my own "moral principles" up against anybody else's, any day. In large part, they are the ones actually stated in the Scout Oath and Law, and the related ones of respect for my fellow human beings -- not the alleged "values" that have been imported into the Scout Oath and Law from someone else's religious and political beliefs.

fgoodwin opines: Assuming is a dangerous thing. I actually wasn't assuming anything. I was being sarcastic. Humorously so, in my own mind, anyway. I didn't say anything. I noticed that. In fact, I have noticed that about a number of the articles that you post. Perhaps it would be a better conversation-starter if you actually do say what you think about the articles, so we don't have to guess at what your point is. Though, of course, that's up to you. Do you have any reaction to the author's thesis? What exactly do you think that "thesis" is? I don't really see a thesis. What I see is sort of a cheap shot at the President, but a rather mild one as political writing goes, and certainly much milder than most of the commentary that I see and hear hurled from the "other side of the aisle" on a regular basis. I did think it was kind of funny, though (unlike the "satire" that you posted around the same time. And I mostly share the writer's opinion of "free trade legislation" which I personally think is a scam on the American worker, but that's probably best reserved for a different forum.)

So fgoodwin, I assume what you are saying is, we should all be angry at the President for his rudeness to the Boy Scouts?

lol Semper. Operators are standing by, I'm sure. And if you survive your knife wound, while you are recovering you can watch your new DVD of Follow Me Boys starring Fed MacMurrary, Best Price $15.99 at the Scouter Catalog!

stlscouter says: NJCubscouter-so if a lawsuit is filed you have a 1 in 2 or worst case senario 1 in 3 chance of winning $- in the big leagues a .333 hitter is on track with an MVP award. I do not know what the ACLU's "winning percentage" is or what their "record" is on motions for fees. I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position. The reason I brought up the fact that the ACLU gets fees from the government only when it wins, and that there may be cases where they expend resources without any compensation at the end, was to refute an impression that Student was apparently trying to leave, which is that all the ACLU has to do is file a lawsuit and the government pays it money, or that there is anything "easy" about getting fees in these kinds of cases. I think that this sort of impression is part of how Student (and previous posters in this forum) have tried to persuade others that the law ought to be changed. After all, if the ACLU can get fees just by filing a lawsuit, that isn't very fair, is it? Especially when the people paying the fees are us taxpayers? Well, of course that wouldn't be fair -- but it isn't the law anyway. I don't think that the ACLU has ever had to pay a defendant for having lost a suit and had to pay $ or am I wrong? Well, they would not have to pay if the suit is against the U.S. government, at least not under 42 USC sec. 1988, the statute says so. I am not sure whether this is a possibility in a case against a state or local government. If the lawsuit is "frivolous" (which means something more than just the plaintiff losing the case), the defendant (presumably including the federal, state or local government) could seek sanctions (which can include attorney's fees) under a court rule that is applicable to all kinds of civil cases, not just "civil liberties" or "civil rights" cases. I do not know whether that has ever happened to the ACLU, but if it happens it is probably rare. But again, is there a point to the question?

I plan to get this book and read it before commenting on it, but if its contents match the description by the reviewer quoted by fgoodwin, and the admiring comments by Student, it sounds to me like a political polemic rather than a true study of anything. But I should wait until I read it. I do need to comment on one statement by Student, though, and it is an issue that has been brought up in this forum before: One suggestion he did not list is to attack the source of the funding of the ACLU (by amending USC Section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases--in summary, this entails a change in U.S. law so that the ACLU is not automatically paid by the federal government each time the ACLU files a "violation of rights" case of the type being filed against BSA.) What is missing from this description of "USC Section 1988" (or more accurately, 42 USC section 1988) is that in order to be awarded attorney's fees, the plaintiff has to win the case. Or in the words of the statute, to get attorney's fees you must be the "prevailing party" (the "winner" in other words.) And in practice, that does not just mean the winner in front of a jury, but the winner after all appeals have been concluded. So contrary to Student's statement, when the ACLU "files" a lawsuit, that is just the beginning. Based on many years of experience, I can tell you that there is a very, very big difference between filing a lawsuit and winning it. I could tell you stories. A lot of people today seem to think that when an attorney files a lawsuit, suddenly people are wheeling barrels full of money up to the plaintiff's (and attorney's) door. I can assure you it is not that way. Also it is not automatic that you get an award of fees, even if you win. Here is what the statute says, though I have cut out some parts that do not change the meaning because otherwise it would be confusing to many people: "In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [certain listed federal statutes mainly dealing with deprivations of rights by the government], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs..." (What I cut out at the end is an exception involving suits against judges, basically it severely restricts the circumstances under which a judge would have to pay attorney's fees. In plain English it means a judge is not going to be personally liable simply because a later judge does not like his/her decision.) So, if you win in a suit against the government (which is who the ACLU almost always sues, another fact that often seems to be forgotten in this forum), you may be able to recover your attorneys fees. In the case of the ACLU what it means is that they can take a case for nothing, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens, which often involves huge expenditures of resources, in the hopes that (1) they will win, and (2) they will be able to convince a judge to award fees, and then if they do get fees, the award is used to pursue future cases and to pay operating expenses of the organization (which overlap anyway.) I think it's a good law, myself. It allows for people (either on their own or through a group like the ACLU) to pursue a claim that their rights were (or are being) violated by the government, because if they had to pay a lawyer up front, chances are they couldn't afford it.

Fgoodwin says: Why would you voluntarily choose to stay in an organization if you don't agree with its principles? Exclusion of openly gay people is not a principle of Scouting. Some people (including me) believe excluding gays simply because they are gay, violates the principles of Scouting. If we could all respect each other and recognize that this is an issue about which Scouting is legitimately divided, there could be a policy allowing you to practice discrimination in your unit while allowing me (actually our troop's CO) to practice non-discrimination in our unit (and I think that is what would happen in my son's troop.) Now, "duty to God" is a principle of Scouting, that is why atheism presents a much more complicated issue. I still believe that the principles of Scouting require the exclusion of someone who openly espouses an affirmative belief in the non-existence of God, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the current policy, which according to at least one portion of the BSA's web site, also excludes agnostics, for example. I see no reason why a boy cannot do his "duty to God" if he thinks there might be one, but isn't sure. On the other hand, I am not certain that the alleged exclusion of "agnostics" is, in practice, what the BSA actually does. (I suppose this subject I have raised really should be a new thread.)

Gern: Good post, I agree. I think that in some areas, for some people, the BSA's discriminatory membership policies are a hindrance to recruitment. It may not reflect in national numbers because of the "diversity" of opinion on these subjects between different areas of the country and different demographic settings. But I can tell you that in a "blue" state such as New Jersey, the membership policies are a stumbling block, while a change in these policies would result in very little (if any) loss of members. In other states, there might be a different result, and of course there would be differences within states, for example far-Eastern Pennsylvania vs. most of the rest of Pa.

Stlscouter says: Indiana Jones was a palentoligist etc and was a Boy Scout.... I am pretty sure Indiana Jones was an archaeologist (however it is you spell that.) But he was a Boy Scout, I am pretty sure he was shown with a Life badge on his uniform.

Neil asks: This is a tremendously difficult situation, particularly if the boy is not particularly articulate as many preadolescent and adolescent boys are not. Boy, ain't that the truth, and the lack of articulate-ness displays itself even on questions much "easier" than those about reverence or belief in God. In fact the whole BOR situation seems to reduce even boys who are very articulate, to blabbering idiots, or sometimes, to seemingly rob them of their power of speech entirely. I was in a Life BOR for our troop's current SPL, a kid who (as I once heard someone say) could talk the hind legs off a mule, and yet in the BOR he could barely complete a sentence until he got "settled in" and things went smoothly from there. We also have a practice in our troop of boys being asked to repeat the Scout Law and Oath during both SM Conferences and BOR's (ok, it's probably not supposed to happen but it does and in my opinion it doesn't hurt anybody) and we have boys (including this same SPL, in his SM Conference) who know it all cold and have said it without stumbling hundreds of times, suddenly when they are on their own, various words get twisted inside out and backwards, or just left out completely. I am told that my son, in his recent First Class BOR, had the same problem. And this is a kid who recites the Oath and Law at home, by himself, for fun, to see how fast he can say them (pretty fast, with no slipups.) So I can just imagine how a boy would react to a question that, I agree with Neil and Hunt, is a rude question about what may (for that boy) be a complicated subject, especially when there is some ambiguity in how the boy is feeling about his place in the Universe at that given moment.

There is a lot in this review that I disagree with, some things that are plainly preposterous, even a thing or two that I do agree with, but this has to be the pinnacle of absurdity: The Boy Scouts embody everything liberals hate... This is just patently ridiculous. I understand that it is sort of a fad among some (I said "some") conservatives today to paint "liberals" as being the "enemy," "traitors" etc. (rather than just an ideological group with different views), and if you follow the link for this article you will find that the web site for which this person writes is not exactly moderate or objective in its views. I saw one article listed on the side of the page, by the same writer, with the title "Not All Liberals are Evil," which is nice of him to acknowledge, I guess. But as for the statement about the Boy Scouts embodying everything "liberals" hate (a ridiculous statement, as I may have mentioned), this guy does not even bother explaining or justifying it, as if his readers would not need any explanation, since the evil nature of almost all (though "Not All") "liberals" is well-understood. Looking at the web site in question, I can see why he would feel this way, since "liberals are (almost all) evil" is basically the theme of the entire site, but unfortunately I also realize that a few of the regular posters in THIS forum seem to share that viewpoint as well. So I know that some people will not understand this statement, but the true values of Scouting are in fact values on which both "liberals" and "conservatives" of "good faith" (in the sense of respecting other people, not the religious sense) can agree. It is really just one "value" that actually is a political/religious doctrine that a temporary majority of those currently controlling of the BSA have forced on the entire organization, in the false guise of "values," that is causing most (not all) of the trouble in the BSA today. I do agree with this writer's introductory section where he talks about the victim mentality that some of the BSA's defenders are promoting. I have pointed out a few times in the past few weeks where that victim mentality is often promoted in THIS forum, most often by the person who started this thread.

Well, there IS such an "organization" as the "GSA" but it has nothing to do with Girl Scouts. As any student of U.S. government (or anyone who has gone into a federal office building and read the logo on the floor mats) can tell you, "GSA" stands for General Services Administration. It is a very large federal agency and among other things, it operates almost all non-military federal facilities.

What I think is lost on most people today is that the Shakespeare quote about killing all the lawyers is spoken by a character who was one of the "bad guys." I guess it is just more fun to talk about killing lawyers. Sometimes I wonder whether some people would find the quote quite so amusing and quotable if it was about their profession or occupation. Well, I don't really have to wonder.

Fgoodwin, rail away at a silly parody if you wish, but I think you are missing an important sign that your argument has failed, and will forever fail, to catch on in this forum. When you are complaining about some perceived slight against the BSA, and you can't get Ed OR Bob to agree with you, I think it's time to give it up.

After awhile in this forum you learn to just ignore it. I even find some lawyer jokes funny (though not very many and none in this thread.) NJCubScouter (Esq.)

OGE says: OK, I can accept the gays, lawyers and the ACLU, but not the accordian player and Ed says: Leave the accordion, take the canoli. Don't Shoot, I'm Only the ACLU Accordion Player. You Can tune a Lawyer But You Can't Tune an Accordion. I got millions of 'em! Two can play at this game, Ed. With apologies to the late Warren Zevon: Send lawyers, gays and accordians Or, to move from a title to a lyric: Send lawyers, gays and money, The accordian has hit the fan...

Government property is government property-whether it is a military base or the Lincoln Memorial. Really? You try having a protest march at each and let me know how you make out. Though, after you refuse to leave the military base beause you think government property is government property, please don't waste your one phone call on me, an attorney in your own state would be a better bet.

Merlyn, I once heard a slightly different argument as to why the blue laws have a secular purpose, which is to protect small retailers (with few or no employees other than the owners) from being driven out of business by the large chains, mega-stores etc. The argument went that with stores open 7 days a week, the large stores could easily stagger their employees' schedules so that they work only 5 or 6 days a week each while the store remains open every day, while "Mom and Pop" could never take a day off because they would have to close the store and lose that day's business (one-seventh of their business per week) to Walmart. However, if all stores had to be closed on the same day, Mom and Pop could close the store and go to the beach (or church) for the day, secure in the knowledge that their regular customers were not abandoning them for Walmart, since Walmart is closed too. It wouldn't work if the mandatory day off wasn't all on the same day. As for why Sunday, well, what day would most citizens prefer to have off? Probably Sunday, and as the argument went, it is not up to the government to inquire why that is the day the people want off, that's just the day they want, and that creates a legitimate secular governmental purpose. That's how the argument went, anyway. I didn't say it necessarily was a good argument, and I do not know how it would play in Court or if it has ever been used, but that was the argument. It at least attempts to explain why the "mandatory day off" had to be all on the same day. Interestingly, I believe there is still one county in New Jersey that has blue laws. The blue laws in the county I live in were repealed only in the early 80's, not very long ago in the general scheme of things. Did I hear someone say "Off Topic"? Oh well...

Another attempt at satire? But seriously, your right to peaceably assemble to petition for redress of grievances (not to have a Jamboree) is subject to reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions. In the specific cases you mention, if the marchers had attempted to conduct their activities on a military base without permission, I suspect the results might have been a bit different.

Fgoodwin says: True, the website is devoted to "satire" and "humor". Still, I believe it reflects the general view of those who oppose the BSA's membership policies. As one of those who does oppose at least one of the BSA's membership policies, I have to ask, which part of the article do you think "reflects" our "general view"? Do you think we believe that President Bush told the Jamboree "You'd be better off in Iraq than here. I know where you can sign up!"? Do you think we think God smote the Boy Scouts because of their anti-gay stance? Do you think we think God works out at the local Y? Which part of that do you think reflects our general view? (For some reason I now want to say, "Waddya mean, funny? How'm I funny? Like a clown?... But I digress.) Well, if you DO think it reflects our general view, that might explain a few things. Or maybe you mean that we think the BSA's policy is wrong and harmful to the organization, and this article takes that position to a ridiculous extreme? I think that would be the definition of "satire." Jonathan Swift wanted to make a point about the allocation of resources in Great Britain during his time, but I don't think he actually thought children sholud be on the dinner menu. (For those who miss the literary allusions here, we have Goodfellas, 1980-something, and A Modest Proposal, 16-something-something.)

Obviously it is a satire, and like many attempts at humor it suffers from not being very funny. But to take it at all seriously as "BSA bashing" is ridiculous. The whole site is filled with parodies and satire, and although most of them seem to be from the "left" side of the aisle, I scrolled down and saw some fun being poked at John Kerry and (dare I say the name in this forum?) Hillary Clinton as well. I am sure I could find some sites that do the same thing from the opposite side of the aisle. This thread is just another example of the whole "BSA as victim" theme that has been promoted lately in this forum, not just by fgoodwin but by others as well. I have heard it said that it is the "left" in this country that promotes a "victim mentality," but some of the BSA's "friends" seem to want to place it in the "victim" role too. Personally I don't see how this helps the BSA.

pjzedalis, I will not criticize the choices you have made or the priorities you have set for yourself, after all when I was 20 and in college I did not continue to be involved in the activities of my old troop or any other Scouting activity, either. However, I do think you should have more respect for the choices others make for themselves. What is right for you may not be right for someone else. Hopefully you will realize this as you grow older (though unfortunately, some people never do.)

Rooster, I think the problem here is that nobody really is portraying ALL "Bible-believing Christians" as being hateful or arrogant or anything else. There are some people (including me) who believe that SOME members of many different religions are hateful, arrogant, etc. If some people have a particular concern about those Christians who are hateful and bigoted, it is simply because they are the overwhelming majority religion in this country. I have known Orthodox Jews who are hateful and bigoted, but nobody really worries much about them because there are so few of them and they keep mostly to themselves. On the other hand, I know Bible-believing Christians (though you, Rooster, might not consider them as such) who hate nobody and do not have a bigoted bone in their bodies. (I'm not sure how my wife fits into all this, she is a Catholic who does not believe in evolution, is pro-life, believes in ghosts and psychic powers and all kinds of other things that drive me crazy, and also believes the BSA should let in gays and that the Catholic church should allow women and married men to be priests.) And I just can't resist this, Rooster: You think you are a messenger of God, but you're not arrogant?

Bob, my last post was written before I saw yours of 9:24:48, it really applies to the one before that. Your latest post is ridiculous for different reasons, which I have already explained. The Boy Scouts can't do anything it wants and still be the Boy Scouts.

Bob, now you are just making things up. You are rewriting what you said earlier, and you are defining "creationism" so it will suit your argument, as opposed to what everybody else understands it to mean. All faiths have a creation story, some very similar to the Old Testament. I am not aware of any religion that gives random coincidence or evolution credit for creation. A Boy Scout or leader does not have to believe in a particular "faith" or "religion" in order to believe in God. And I know plenty of people who accept the idea of evolution and also are "avowed" members of particular religions, including Judaism and Christianity. I also am sure I can find some movements and denominations (I know Reform Judaism is one) that explicitly accept evolution as being consistent with their religion. So I don't know what you are talking about, and more to the point, neither do you. You are just making things up. (Maybe I said that already.)