evmori 11 Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 merlyn, What is your point? All you want to do is tear down an organization that does good. And ya know what, ya won't. This organization is too strong to let people like you ruin it. The BSA was here long before you and will be here long after you and they haven't changed thier stance on this. You are fighting a fight you can't win. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 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 all military units as charter partners, removing all municipal police and fire departments as charter partners, removing all community development block grants from HUD is clearly a fight I and others CAN win, because the government simply can't practice such religious discrimination. It would be no more legal if these government agencies supported youth groups that excluded Jews. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 merlyn, Obviously the government feels the BSA is a good organization since they have a federal charter. Been that way for a lot of years. Lot's of great people were Boy Scouts. You want to remove government support to groups that practice religious discrimination? Are you going after all groups or just the BSA? And yes I can understand. I think what you are doing is about as unamerican as it gets. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 In the old days multiple carnivals used to travel across the country. Many had animal acts and a term came into use. "one trick pony", it was generic for any animal, or person, who could only do one thing. Well folks, Merlyn is a type of One Trick Pony. He does not want any governmental unit chartering Boy Scout units, thats it. Its not a question of how much he likes, knows about, or cares about the program, its about governmental units chartering BSA units. I dont think Merlyn wants to destroy Boy Scouts, he just doesnt want governmental units to charter Boy Scout units. Actually, he has not to my recollection ever advocated Boy Scouts change its membership rules to admit Atheists, just has pointed out that we discrminate against them and therefore governmental units can not charter BSA units.(Merlyn, Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, although I know you would with or without my permission ) If we are going to argue with Merlyn, we should argue whether or not governmental units should be allowed to charter BSA units. thats all. Now, I hate to admit this, but I for one have sorta benefited from Merlyn's posts. Took me awhile to see what Merlyn was saying because of how deeply I am emotionally invested in the Boy Scouts. If I was looking for a Charter Organization for a BSA unit, I would not want to use a Governmental Unit. The litigation merlyn refers to will some day be settled. It may be a few years, maybe more, but unless some really radical things happen, I can see the courts ruling in the favor of the Atheists. I wouldnt want to be building a program and have to change CO's. The Dale case ruled that as a private organization, we are able to set our own membership rules. In the future, the part about us being a private oranization with restrictive mebership criteria is going to be the key that will make governmental units unable to sponsor BSA units. I agree we have the right to set our own membership criteria, I also think units with CO's that are governmental units should have a Plan B somewhere in the archives in case the court rulings are not in favor of the BSA.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to post Share on other sites
dsteele 20 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 OGE --- Once again you have provided the voice of wisdom. I agree and fight to make sure our (BSA) ties to the U.S. government aren't as tight as they were 15 years ago. The BSA policies haven't changed, but the opposition to the BSA standards of membership has, sadly, gained strength. I do have to admit, however, that Merlyn and his ilk tick me off. There's no standards on their part. They want what they want and they want it now. I have to admit that I'm in the first quarter of the latest Harry Potter book and had visions of vanquishing the wizard Merlyn. Now I've come to a different conclusion. Merlyn is much like the baby moths I've had flying in my house the past couple of weeks. If I can snag one and smash it, so much the better. If not, I'm not going out of my way. It will leave on its own eventually. Frankly, Merlyn (and learn to spell it properly, would you?) You're not worth any more effort on my part. I'll respond to you if, and only if, I'm bored enough. DS Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 Dsteele, take a few moments and do a Google search on Merlyn LeRoy. Link to post Share on other sites
bt01 10 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 What was this scout thinking when he decided come out???? Didnt he know that his registration was going too denied??? Or asked not to come back??? Was he living in some cave on some island?? If he believed that the BSA was an outstanding organization he should have kept his mouth shout. By his actions he is tearing the BSA apart. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 btps, No its not! There is no evidence of that. The program continues to move forward, membership is strong. What makes you think that upholding the values of the program are tearing it apart, or that a few people unable to live by the oath and law are tearing it apart? There were people in the 70s who thought that backlash from the Viet Nam war would end scouting, others thought drugs would end scouting, still others thought letting woman play a larger role would end scouting. None of that was true. The values of scouting have continued to be the foundation of the movement. Scouting is strong, it is especially strong enough to stand through this controversy. Link to post Share on other sites
bt01 10 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 The values of the program and the oath and law make BSA what it is, a strong organization. There are adults and organizations that do not understand where the BSA is coming from Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 btps, At times I think its not that other organizaitons or adults dont understrand where the BSA is comming from, its that they do understand and its that fact BSA wont yield that drives them crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
bt01 10 Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 OldGreyEagle You might have hit the nail on the head with your comment Link to post Share on other sites
dsteele 20 Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Packsaddle: I did the search as requested. The guy is a waste of time. "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!" Only he doesn't believe the rabbit exists. Thanks for the tip. I'm not spending any more time on this guy. DS Link to post Share on other sites
MarkNoel 10 Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 btps writes: > What was this scout thinking when he decided come out???? Didnt he know that his registration > was going too denied??? Or asked not to come back??? Was he living in some cave on some > island?? If he believed that the BSA was an outstanding organization he should have kept his > mouth shout. And done what? Lied? Hidden? What if he thought that the best thing for the Scouting movement here in the US would be to confront this issue head-on rather than having everyone pretend that there weren't gay scouts out there? Even if you disagree with him, you gotta give him credit for following the 10th point of the Scout Law. And the 1st, for that matter... > By his actions he is tearing the BSA apart. I think you give entirely too much credit to one 18-year-old Life Scout. If the BSA is coming apart, it's not because one young man decided he could trust his local Scout Executive to do what he said. YiS, -Mark Link to post Share on other sites
MarkNoel 10 Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 nldscout writes: > well its obvious isn't! The guy is Gay, he has to show it off, like" Look at me, I am a Queer" . > Thats the problem with the fruitcake community, they can't just live and let live, they have to make > a big deal out of it Um... did it ever occur to you that referring to someone as a member of "the fruitcake commmunity" is hardly a good example of "live and let live?" Not to mention discourteous and unkind, of course... If you'd like to know why many gay people feel the need to come out (or "show it off" as you so indelicately put it), you might want to check out the following: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#tellorientation YiS, -Mark Link to post Share on other sites
MarkNoel 10 Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Laurie (CubPack495) 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. Except that LFL never discriminated to begin with... so why would all the community leaders and funders in Philadelphia consider the policy to be some kind of "breakthrough?" The real problem here is that the policy was made out to be one thing to the funders, and was then quickly re-interpreted the moment it was put to the test. Now most of the funders and supporters in Philadelphia feel betrayed, and that they can no longer trust the local council. Here's the latest article on that from today's Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6162554.htm > The position statement on leadership in this council is on National's website. Yes, dated June 12. And Roy William's "clarifying" memo was sent Monday morning, June 9. But all of this was AFTER Greg Lattera was kicked out, and after everyone in Philadelphia had been reporting on the "new" non-discrimination policy for almost two weeks without a correction from CoL. Here's a good URL if you want to see some more detailed information on the case as it pertains to Greg Lattera (including copies or links to a lot of these documents and news stories): http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/lattera/ > Though the media is continuing to publish statements that are incurate, the council is not > addressing this publicly but will answer anyone who asks them about it. I'm curious... exactly what media statement was inacurrate and why? From everything that I've seen, the vast majority of the local media coverage -- especially from the Philadelphia Inqurer -- has been very accurate. Linda Harris at the Inquirer has been following this for over a month now, and has spoken at great length to everyone involved, including Bill Dwyer and David Lipson at CoL. She's done a lot of homework on this, and based on my own knowledge of what's been going on there, I haven't seen any real howlers. YiS, -Mark Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now