NJCubScouter

Well, FOG, fortunately, what you care and don't care about is not the legal standard by which these issues are decided.

Bob says: The APO says that they are based on the values not that they mimic the values. That's pretty clever, but it doesn't answer the question. Actually what I quoted does not use either the terms "based on" or "mimic." But let's leave that aside. What your statement really does is raise, again, the question of which of the BSA's values, if any, require the BSA to exclude openly gay leaders. It is a question I have asked several times but have never gotten a real answer to. Assuming that there is such a value (or more than one), and the APO's policies are based on the same values as the BSA's, then how could the 2 organizations come to such a different conclusion on an issue that the BSA believes is so important? Maybe the answer is that it is not so important -- in other words, that the exclusion of gays is not required by some fundamental, central value of the BSA. And if that is the case, there doesn't have to be a uniform national policy about it. As you have read they do not make any judgement on the internal processes of other organizations. I didn't say they do, explicitly, or even consciously. I said "by implication." One organization interprets the words of the Scout Oath and Law to mean gay people should be excluded. Another interprets the same words to mean they should not. That implies a disagreement about how the words should be interpreted, even if neither organization is making a "judgment" about the policies of the other. so your assumption is totally unfounded. I didn't assume anything. I made a logical deduction. But now I will make a supposition, which I can't prove, and that is that the BSA was not happy to see APO's statement on this subject. They use the Scout emblem with the permission of the BSA who recognizes and supports their mission. Bob, I'm sure you can't see the irony in that statement, but I can.

Are the Girl Scouts Anti Semitic? No, just misguided occasionally -- a trait that they share with their male (er, mostly male) counterpart organization. Bob says: It's a complicated world we live in, and there are people who will try to use non-partisan organizations as devices to a political end. Yes, there sure are -- though I suspect we are not necessarily talking about the same people.

Agh. I said: ...he meant really... I meant: ...he really meant... I can't edit my posts.

Since when is a problem for anyone to "apply" for a grant? You know, that's a good question. Merlyn was talking about a grant being "awarded." It was FOG who changed it to "applied for." I guess I just sort of assumed he meant really "awarded" since that was the topic, and I responded to that. If FOG really just meant "applied for," his post was irrelevant to the thread.

FOG says: I really wouldn't care if you started a no Jews club and applied for a federal grant. FOG, assuming that you aren't Jewish, what if I started a no-Whatever-Religion-FOG-is Club, and applied for a federal grant, then would you care?

Excuse me for getting back to the original subject of this thread, but... I have heard of but never personally encountered the organization APO, so I went onto their web site (intuitively enough, www.apo.org) to get a better idea of what it was all about. While it is true as Bob says, that it is a "different organization," I wonder how many organizations have among their official stated purposes, "to assemble college students in a national service fraternity in the fellowship of principles derived from the Scout Oath and Law of the Boy Scouts of America" or have a section at the bottom of their home page titled "Our Partners," including the name and logo of the Boy Scouts of America (linking to the BSA home page.) The logo, by the way, appears to be a copyrighted symbol of the BSA, though there is no copyright mark. You'd think, that with such different membership policies, the BSA would sue them to make them stop referring to the BSA and using their copyrighted symbols, wouldn't you? (For all subtlety-impaired persons, that was a bit of sarcasm.) Non-sarcastically, it is interesting to note that by implication, this organization (APO) apparently believes that the "principles derived from the Scout Oath and Law of the Boy Scouts of America" do not justify some of the current membership policies of the BSA. Imagine that.

SA, I think it's equally possible that if the "CSA" had entered WWI in recognition of British assistance in the Civil War, they would have done so in 1914, not 1917, and it is possible that they would have been enough to turn the tide against Germany, resulting perhaps in an even worse defeat for Germany than the one that actually happened. From there on, everything happens pretty much the way it actually did happen. I also think TP's theory of the USA not entering the war due to the influence of German and Irish citizens doesn't hold up. The North was still pretty much calling the shots politically by 1914-1917, so if the Germans and Irish were not enough to stop the USA from entering into the war, I doubt that the absence of the Southern states would have made that big a difference. Of course, it is quite possible that President Woodrow Wilson still would have been president, but of the "CSA," since he was a Southerner. On the other hand, TP, I think it is time to return to Planet Earth now. I am beginning to worry that you think these things actually happened.

My son's troop has a "Pig Stompers" patrol. I don't think they have a patch. (My son is in the much more traditional Cobras.) In addition, the "senior patrol" is referred to as the "Scapegoats." I have never delved into the reason for this, it may be a play on "Old Goats" which is how the "adult patrol" is known. At a recent district First Aid meet I saw a "Tofu" patrol, in fact I think I saw two of them.

TrailPounder, that's very creative, and it's possible that it could have turned out something like that. Of course, a lot of other things are possible, too. Averting Naziism AND the spread of Soviet power are an awful lot to lay on one hypothetical country.

whitewater says: The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality. I suppose you could say that everybody on both sides of the "gay issue" wants to "validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality." You have your view of what is moral, and I have mine. Some people (including me) think it is wrong (or if you will, "immoral") to exclude someone from a leadership position simply because they are gay. However, I realize that many people have the opposite moral view. That is why the BSA should give everybody at least a chance of being in a unit that reflects their moral viewpoint, by being able to choose on a unit basis whether to have a policy that excludes everyone who is openly gay. Since I know this will probably get some responses, the fact that I don't answer the responses for a few days (if at all) does not mean that I suddenly changed my mind, or anything. It means that I am about to leave for a weekend camping trip.

whitewater says: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements- just as any other private organization can. Is that discrimination? No, it is the freedom of association, which is implicit in the First Ammendment. Well, it's both, actually. The Supreme Court didn't decide that the policy in question was not discrimination -- just that the law making it illegal was in conflict with the BSA's rights under the First Amendment. Now, you can believe that it is the kind of discrimination that is justified, or you can believe that it is the kind of discrimination that is unjustified, but it is discrimination either way. The Supreme Court didn't even decide the issue of justified vs. unjustified, they only decided the constitutional issue.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether your (btps) DE should be asking volunteers whether they have "anything to hide." Sounds like your DE probably flunked out of charm school.

Btps, on the current version of the adult application (in use a little over a year, I think) you have to give your Social Security number so that the criminal background check can be performed. (The application also includes an acknowledgment that the background check will be performed and that you are being asked to provide otherwise personal and confidential information for that purpose.)

Let me address this part more directly: So why the sudden astonishment when one person turns the tables. Is it because you expect something more of a BSA member? and why is that? Because you expect them to have a higher value base? That's why they restrict the membership. Bob, I'm right with you until the last sentence. In fact, I'm with you for 99 percent of that sentence, too. I like the values of the BSA, no less than you do. Those values do dictate that certain people not be members of the BSA. But those values do not dictate that all openly gay people be banned, in fact, they dictate the opposite, because exclusion of gays is not a "value," it is a religious doctrine. It may have been a "value" when the BSA was founded, but I need to remind you that racial discrimination was ok with the BSA then, too. Some values have changed.

NJ, You disagree with his position and instead of debating his point you want to criticize his approach. OK Bob, this thread has gotten a little complicated, but I think the "his" in this sentence is Mark Pulliam, the writer of the article. That being the case, you miss my point. The writer says what he says, and if he wants to be nasty, that's his right. What I am really questioning is not what the writer says, but (given the approach taken by the writer) why the BSA posted the article on its web site. And yes, I do expect the BSA to live up to its own standards, which they clearly have not done by implicitly (if not explicitly) endorsing this opinion-article, essentially accepting the writer's un-Scoutlike words as their own. In fact, my whole argument against the "gay ban" has been based on the idea that the BSA is not living up to its own standards.

Where in the Constitution is the "Establishment Clause"? Ed, you and I have discussed this about ten times, but ok. The Establishment Clause is in the Constitution right before the "free exercise" clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Establishment Clause is the reason why there can't be organized prayer in public schools... and why the government cannot engage in a display of religious symbols... and why (when the cases finally get decided) government bodies or subdivisions probably cannot own Boy Scout troops. I know that there is a mistaken belief floating around out there that the courts have decided all these things because of a comment (by Thomas Jefferson) that there should be a "wall of separation between Church and State," but they really haven't been. All of these decisions are based on the Establishment Clause. The "separation of church and state" is an interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The fact is, however, that recent cases have developed a more sophisticated way (or actually ways) of determining whether a particular action violates the Establishment Clause, and some Supreme Court cases I have seen don't even quote the "separation" language.

Bob says: The Web site merely reprinted a newpaper column that appeared in support of scouting. I do not see that they made any other assertions regarding the column. "Support of Scouting" is one thing. Ridiculing a group of people and calling them names is something else. That is exactly what the BSA is engaging in by reposting this article on their web site, which obviously implies an endorsement of the views expressed therein. Not just the views that support the BSA, but the nasty name-calling. What part of the Scout Law says you should mock and ridicule those who disagree with you? You are right about one thing, there are no other assertions about the column, such as "The views expressed in this article do not reflect the view of the BSA." That is why the reposting of the article implies that the BSA shares the views expressed by the writer.

Ed says: What part is coercive? The promise of the chance of $$$$$$ from a settlement, the promise of fame, etc. Creating unreal fear that "if you let them get away with this then ......." Ed, I think you're off-base here for several reasons. First, offering someone money to do something is not "coercion." (Not counting a situation where you owe them the money in the first place but are withholding it, but that's not what we're talking about.) It may be one or more of a number of other things, some legal and some illegal, some proper and some improper, depending on what the "something" is, and sometimes depending on who is making the offer and who is receiving it. But it isn't coercion. Second, although I am not an expert on this type of lawsuit, it is probably rare for a plaintiff in one of them to see all those dollar signs, or even any money at all. Usually these cases result in injunctions (or not) against the enforcement of a particular law or some other government action. If the plaintiff wins, their attorney's fees will usually be paid by the government entity in question (as well they should be; and yes, if the ACLU is involved, that means some of the money will go to the ACLU, as well it should.) But I think it would be unusual, in a case where one has to "go out and find a plaintiff," for the plaintiff to be able to prove any actual damages. Maybe I'm wrong, and Merlyn probably knows this better than I do; but I think I'm right. Third, "fame," Ed? Do you really think that most people who are persuaded to be plaintiffs in a suit against the government are motivated by "fame?" What fame? I suppose your name might be in the paper a couple times, and if your case becomes a "landmark," textbook writers and law students for years to come might connect your name with a particular principle of law. I don't know of too many people outside the legal profession who would be impressed at all with that sort of "fame." And besides, being motivated by "fame" isn't coercion either. "Be a plaintiff in my case or you won't be famous?" Ooh, I'm so scared. The "fear" thing doesn't ring true either. Assuming that the plaintiff actually cares about the cause in which they have been enlisted (probably true in most of the cases against the BSA), sure they are probably concerned about what the government is doing. Isn't that motivation enough? But it isn't coercion. If the ACLU was really about the defending if the Constitution then they would fight for the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion. Actually, the ACLU does get involved in some cases involving Free Exercise of religion, I've read it on their web site. Ed, you may view the "Establishment Clause" as "freedom from religion," but it's in the Constitution whether you like it or not, and whether you like the way the courts have interpreted it or not.

Yet another tragedy. When are we going to figure out that imposing our ideas of peaceful democracy on a people who have little or no interest in these ideas, is only going to get more former Boy Scouts, and others, killed in this horrible manner?

Deloe, I understand what you are saying about the difference between "lies" about factual matters, and opinions that you don't agree with. But let's assume that the article in question is simply an "opinion article." This still leaves the question, what is it doing on a BSA web site? I think that is the real question that the BSA would have a tough time answering. Putting strongly ideological articles that ridicule others, and call people names, on a BSA web site certainly represents a change in the BSA's public relations tactics (which is what the BSA Legal web site is really a part of.) I can go with you that far. But, calling mixed statements of fact and opinion "lies" only clouds the issue and opens you up for criticism that is really off the main point. (In my opinion, of course.)

FOG guilty of a "serious lack of empathy"? Say it ain't so!

ScoutParent says: Court Martial these privates only after court martialling their superiors who gave the orders. Do my eyes deceive me, or do ScoutParent and I actually agree on something?

OK, ScoutParent, let me approach it this way: You say, "Read the writ..." Why? What do you find interesting or significant about it? And, if you know where it is located on the Internet, where is it? I did a quick search and the first few items were articles that mentioned the writ, not the writ itself. I did not look through the entire list.

ScoutParent, I was not sure what you were talking about, so I did a little searching and came up with this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no10/vo13no10_mideast.htm Is that what you are talking about? And if so, I'm just wondering, do you believe the allegations made by McVeigh's lawyers and the implication of a government cover-up, or are you just pointing it out as something interesting to read? When I read that article, what I see is a bunch of criminal defense lawyers doing their jobs, which is to try to create a reasonable doubt as to their client's guilt. Good try, I say. But if anyone is in a mood to believe everything that a criminal defense lawyer "suggests" could be the truth, I could tell you a few stories. If that really is the case, I know quite a few lawyers who would love to have 12 of you on a jury. But I have a suspicion you don't feel the same way about every criminal case.