skeptic

Not the same thing Pack; she had no right to ask you in the first place, as it has nothing to do with voter registration. So, no it was not wrong that she had to register you. It is another thing to fire, or threaten to fire someone when you change the rules and they will be forced to go against their personal beliefs for some reason.

So, when the court said Gays could marry anyway in California, and the county clerk suddenly found themselves going against their beliefs, it was okay to tell them to give a license or be fired? How is that right? As long as there are others who can perform the task without it infringing on their beliefs, the individual for whom it is a problem should simply be able to refer them. In regard to medical procedures, I doubt there are many doctors who would not over-ride their normal objections if it was truly life or death at the moment. But they might choose to refer a patient to some other physician in non emergency situations which are matters of choice.

Nolesrule: While I do not countenance the comments of this thread's beginning, I feel you need to know the Vulgate is an authentic text, and there are numerous variations known. While most of us were raised with the more or less standard King James Version, it is nowhere nearly the oldest translations of the texts. And various biblical scholars continue today to reinterpret parts of the material, attempting to go back as early as possible. It will always have variations, and often major errors; but the best are clearly valid. Still, the basic material is fairly consistent for the most part. No matter which biblical text you may choose, there will always be cogent versions that challenge the meanings and interpretations. How can it be otherwise, with 2 centuries and 4 major languages, possibly more if you add in the Germanic ones, and some of the earliest Arabic material?

"Public school charters haven't worked very well, have they? The BSA removed them all when the ACLU threatened to sue any public school that chartered a BSA unit that discriminated." And the circle of regurgitation is completed. Shall we start again? Nah! What is the point?

"Here you are advocating that public schools ought to be able to operate private, "no atheists" clubs, ignoring the civil rights of atheists students and dismissing any concern for their rights as "PC", as if that makes trampling their rights acceptable: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5" Actually, all I said was that perhaps rational reasoning and common sense would be able to win out over PC nonsense. Even if the school was the actual sponsor, it would still NOT be required that the Atheist or whomever actually participate. And, if it so bothered them that they were on school property, with some school support, then they could START their own group and meet there also. Of course it highly unlikely they would have enough interest to make it work; but that gives them an excuse to claim it is unfair. No matter what rationale someone puts forward, you just continue to regurgitate that they are infringing on Atheists and other fringe groups' rights somehow. They have the same exact rights, other than to FORCE the others to admit them and change their rules and precepts. They can develop their own programs and use the facilities just the same as the scouts. So far though, that has not worked very well, as can be seen by the lack of success of the few who tried. Oh, that must be the BSA's fault too, somehow, or Christians, or whomever else they don't like and agree with. Yep, that's it.

"Once again skeptic, you seem to think atheists have fewer rights than you. It doesn't work that way. You just can't take criticism." Huh??? Do you ever listen to yourself?

It is a two way street Merlyn; but somehow you seem to think it only one way. It is not the religious suing the Atheist, it is the Atheist suing the religious. I have never said, or even suggested you do not have a right to your beliefs. What I have said, and say again, is that you should not have the right to try to change rules to suit the few, just because you disagree with them. We live in communities, and they will cease to function if minority opinion can run rough shod over the majority through legal intimidation and big pockets. Obviously, you care very little about society as a cohesive, and cooperative endeavor. You will continue your ego-centric attitude no matter what anyone else thinks, does, or even how much negative affects your litigious attacks cause. To me, it is simply sad that community seems to be unimportant to so many. You have the right to believe anything you want, but that does not make it right; nor does your right outweigh mine. The amount of funds that is spent jousting at windmills could do so much more for the public good. And when you lose the match, you become even more vicious in your attacks. See the terrible things done in California when Prop 8 won; people publicly attacked and businesses picketed, just because they voted their conscience. Yet, somehow, many think that is okay. If it was turned around, the perpetrators would be branded as Nazi's or worse. I voted against Prop 8, because I felt it went too far. But, I still do not feel personal living decisions should be anybody's business but those involved. I fail to understand how any moderately intelligent individual can be so insecure or shallow that they cannot ignore symbols and words with which they disagree and find it necessary to make an issue of it. While certainly I cannot prove or disprove it, I would suspect that if we ever implemented the legal methods in Europe, where litigants who lost would have to pay all the legal costs of those who they sued, we would see far fewer of these types of suits. As long as it is less expensive to simply roll over, or pay a settlement, it will continue. And very often to the detriment of community, especially when the payee is government. There are your taxes being put to good use. Enough; shield up. Later.

Merlyn: Perhaps the word should be coerce, or manipulate, rather than force. By constantly taking issue with others' beliefs, and bringing legal actions, especially in ambiguous areas of public accommodation, they indirectly cause many groups to either spend time and funds to defend, or make spurious adjustments to try to evade the attacks. Somehow, the beliefs and feelings of the few continue to be seen as more important and valid than the many. And when someone, or some organization actually stands up to them, they find every way possible to demonize and marginalize. Force; Pressure? Call it something else, but it is real, and too often totally self serving.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Perhaps a separate spin-off, but related. What are the thoughts on contacting businesses that fly flags that are either threadbare, or just done incorrectly, such as at night with no light? Every time I drive to the neighboring community along the 101, I see a motel with a flag at half staff, or almost so. I suspect the pulley or rope is bad, but do not know. Over the years, I cannot count how many frayed and discolored flags I have seen in front of places. Same for flags at night with no obvious lighting, unless nearby buildings is acceptable. Just wonder if anyone feels it is worth the effort to contact at least the most egregious ones?

Calico; It seems to me that a truer measurement or comparison might be to average what similar, you say type B space, is going for in the immediate environs of the building. I am led to understand that this is an older, and less desirable section of town; if so, then the per square foot costs would likely be substantially lower. But, I could be mistaken on this. Perhaps you can clarify that for us. Whatever the case, the city has basically taken the building because they can. When it was built and given to the city, it was a different time. Today, no one would be likely to enter into such an arrangement under the terms of that time, as they would recognize that they would need to protect themselves more securely. In some respects there are very similar conditions with the camp on Mission Bay. 42 youth organizations and the city "asked" the scouts to build the Fiesta Island. They did, at their own expense; now we have the law suit that is basically trying to take the camp away, even though it was built with the blessing of the city and the other groups, and is open to anyone. This continued ego-centric, sometimes amoral attitude is counterproductive in most cases. And it rarely serves the best interests of the general populous, often causes far more damage to positive programs that benefit large portions of the community. Of course this really does not matter to those who push the issues, as they "are ego-centric". JMO; armor on.

Just for info, there is now an official request tendered to the Supreme Court about the San Diego cases. See the BSA legal links for details. Any bets on how long this will drag on? Surely, it will be months or more before a decision is reached to even hear it. Will the SC have a new member by then?

Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist. Since the BSA has beliefs that are not in conjunction with them, why would they need to serve them. Secondly,there is no restriction on the kids of Gays, only on allowing their adult guardians to be leaders. As long as the kids will adhere to the ideals of BSA, they can be members. If guardians or parents choose to keep their kids from the program, that is their choice. They can and do find other alternatives.

Merlyn says: "Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people. Your entire argument is a red herring along the lines of "we're nice, they aren't, so shouldn't we (the good guys) get preferential treatment, even if it infringes on the rights of those undesirables over there?" First, I have "never" said any of these various groups were undesirable; that is your misconception. I choose to generally disagree with many of them, but they are not undesirables in my view, simply self centered and individuals with whom I choose to not associate if possible. Second, lets change the "preferential" requirement. What if the government entity or program said something along the lines of this. "Any group who gives x amount of service to improve the facilities, will get a discounted rate of"? Or some other similar stipulation. Speaking in terms of people hours, at a minimum wage comparison, most likely the stipulation would more than cover this reduced cost. Would that then be okay? Or do you still see it as unfair somehow? Calico states; "Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me, and should be to any Scout, Scout Leader, and especially any Arrowmen." Again, no one has suggested BSA, or any other group given these preferences should expect them, or at least that was not the intent of the comment. But, if the agency or whatever feels this is appropriate based on a very long history of contributions to it or other elements of community, it is then their decision based on factors they see as important or whatever. Again, it is in the balance of the longer and broader view. Still, as noted in the question to Merlyn above; would it still be abhorrent to you then?

So Beavah gets back to the broader point of this thread. Over almost a hundred years the BSA has contributed untold hours, likely well into the tens of millions at this point, to various public improvements and assistance. So, as recognition for these contributions, most government entities have given them some special consideration on fees on public property and services. The contributions of the BSA have far out weighed the pittance of so called unfairness. What have the Atheists of America, or whatever given over the same period? What has the ACLU or the Gay organizations given in comparison? I am sure that Merlyn will claim the ACLU has given service by its law suits in various forms. And there is some truth to that; but many of those suits ended up with them getting huge payouts as well that went to them directly. The scales are badly out of balance when you look at the broader picture. Still, this point will be ignored or made light of, as it reflects too clearly on the obvious bias and lack of community in the "disparagers'" camp. And now back to the repetitive harangues.

All councils and districts seem to have the "few" WB'ers that reflect a bit poorly on the program. It is funny though, that in our council anyway, we have a few mostly really old time scouters who find WB to be fighting words. They simply hate Woodbadge, and put it down whenever the opportunity allows. Why; who knows for sure, other than they met someone who went through the old course and somehow suddenly acted like they knew everything. Of course these old goats (lol) already had that attitude, and pretty much the skills to prove it. You learn to accept the good and the not so good, and put it in context. All training is useful. What we do with it is the real test. I found all the courses I took at Philmont to be great learning as well; but the scouting camaraderie there was always almost overwhelming. I hope to get back at least once more before I get "too" old, if that is possible.

Added to the loom types, you have special issues like jambo, Philmont, or commemoration of something in the council. Often those tend to be more desirable, especially if few were actually issued or sold.

Merlyn: The scouts built the building, and have maintained it for all these years. The city reneged on its contract. $200,000 will go a long way to drive program in "that" part of the city. Proximity to the customer is always helpful. And yes, public properties are notorious for being run down, especially if they cannot find a lessee because of a down economy. As far as service goes, we are not talking about service by maintaining the property; we are talking about actual man/boy hours rendered by 100's of scouts and scouters for all types of community entities such as parks, schools, and special events. Add in the aid given to other charitable private groups, and it is huge. In our small council, the Eagle projects alone account for over 60,000 hours of service. What serves the common good more? Trying to force your opinions on others and suing if you disagree; or simply compromising and letting positive groups function as they see fit? I realize that this means nothing to you. So, I will stop "rattling your cage" and go back to ignoring you for a while.

"I'd like to know how the BSA's e.g. litigation over the Cradle of Liberty building is supposed to "help the community" Perhaps by allowing continuation of a positive program in the city, and keeping a substantial piece of land from turning into a weed field, and becoming run down. That is almost certainly what will happen should the city take it over, given their budget and the economy as a whole. Of course none of that matters to a few individuals, as has continued to be pretty clear.

The intent was to try and get an answer from the carpers as to what they actually do or have done to better the communities in which they live, and in which Scouting constantly contributes service. It really was not intended to refer to politics and the two party issues. But, it could, in that the "sore losers" seem to have no alternate ideas, just whining that they do not like what is being done. Their blinders during the past 8 years must have suddenly fallen off. Frankly, I really did not expect any real answer to my intended question, as I do not see the litigants and their supporters doing anything of particular good for the community at large, other than things that are specific to their own needs and issues. Still, perhaps I have missed something.

"What do you consider the minority view?" That should be obvious; but it is of course the diatribes on 2 of the 3 G's. And yes, they are very definitely minority views, unless there is a definition of majority that is new and improved.

While at least some of the strident voices appearing here seem to at least actually be involved, and contributing something, it seems obvious that the most disparaging and unhappy ones are not. So, what, other than trying to force a minority view on the majority through questionable tactics and PC opinions, what have you done to improve your community (assuming you feel forcing minority views as improving things)? What have any of the mostly puppet litigants done to improve their own lot, or that of those with whom they share their town and its resources?

At least in the camps with which I am familiar, the staff gets a number of things not noted. A small clothing allowance at the start, plus usually 2-3 class B shirts, and sometimes neckerchiefs too. Of course the room and board is a factor. Not sure if the state law has something to do with it in California, but they show this as part of their pay. We have one of those "small" camps, and it is true that it is really hard to staff and run, as we cannot compete with the mega-camps most of the time, even though we have a good site and some unique opportunities. We are down to 2 weeks of regular camp, plus an LDS week, and a couple of weeks of Webloes. It is strange how negative issues seem to drag on forever, even when they are fixed. We had a couple of years of really serious dining hall problems, and the camp's rep has been that it seems ever since, even though it has been more or less solved for a number of years. I suspect that being in SCal without a real lake is an issue too; if we were in some parts of the country, perhaps it would not matter as much. Keeping the smaller camps viable perhaps should be one of the National concerns, as they are so important to the base of Scouting.

Over the years I have watched almost every young DE that had a good youth scouting background resign. Why? Because, as noted, it is not what they signed up for. Fortunately, many of them have then become volunteers as their time allowed. The second factor in our area is simply the cost of living; what I would have considered a good salary at their age is no where nearly enough to sustain them unless they have other income sources. I just sent a letter to Mr. Mazzuca this past week with some concerns and thoughts; and this was one of them. It seems to me that National really needs to recognize that there are areas in which some sort of additional "cost of living" pay needs to be considered. The other thing noted already is how often the numbers are the most important thing for pro's. Too often in our district, with its turnstile pro's, I have seen too many older, established units run into problems and sort of die on the vine while across the district they spend resources on starting or trying to start new units which fail at an alarming rate. One would hope that long time, stable units would be the first priority, but of course they usually are not. JMTCW

Another indirect comparison you could use is the Philmont and other high adventure base adult restrictions. They are there for a reason; basically the one you allude to. In our area, the more popular summer camps that have really fun and advanced programs also have adult number restrictions. Maybe pointing these things out could jar their understanding a bit. We old guys used to go out alone with 8-12 on occasion; though I always tried to have at least one other with me for my sanity. Good luck.

It occurs to me that maybe we should replace the "scales" with a "spinning wheel", or perhaps a "spider-web with a gowned judge in the middle".