Pentagon agrees to tell US bases not to sponsor Boy Scout units

[evmori 11]

I'm not Tom Cruise and you sure aren't Jack Nicholson! Answer it for the benefit of the rest of the board, Merlyn. Or maybe you just can't. Wouldn't be the 1st time!

 

Typical of an ACLUer. Declare the person questioning your motives inept therefore eliminating the need to address their valid question.

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[dsteele 20]

Merlyn --

 

If I may take a crack at asking Ed's question in a manner which I hope does not offend . . .

 

Why is it alright for the military to have a don't ask/don't tell policy about homosexuals, and still discharge those who are discovered to be?

 

I didn't want to go down this road. I have the highest respect for our armed forces.

 

Why is it acceptable for them to discriminate and still use military facilities, yet not possible for the BSA to do so and use military facilities.

 

Okay -- that's not the hard question.

 

Here's the hard one --

 

Each of the Military Academies has height and weight requirements that must be met by cadets. I don't know for sure, but I believe this applies to enlisted positions as well.

 

Is this not unlawful discrimination? Even more so because it violates the ADA?

 

Don't hear the ACLU making much noise over that one.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Religious discrimination by the DoD is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution; none of your examples constitute religious discrimination. There is no federal law barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, so the military's policies are legal and constitutional. The ADA allows for legitimate physical qualifications; if you'd like to file a lawsuit against the military, go right ahead.

[evmori 11]

Spins better than a top, doesn't he, unc!

[hops_scout 9]

Merlyn, I believe I've read somewhere that you cannot discrminate when it comes to hiring for sex, age, physical traits, or basically anything! The academies are able to do so. Wouldnt that make them "hiring" illegally considering an appointment to West Point and the Naval Academy, etc are technically jobs. The cadets and Midshipmen get paid after all.

[dsteele 20]

In the words of the musician's who penned the lyrics, "nothin' plus nothin' leaves nothin'" with a slight twist "nothin' minus nothin' leaves nothin'."

 

I could not possibly have more respect for the ACLU now that I've read Merlyn's post than I did before.

 

So the ACLU will be happy to sue wherever they can to prevent the discrimination of the BSA against atheists on military bases, but has no trouble with homosexuals being kicked out of the military.

 

They won't offer to help a short soldier sue to get into West Point.

 

Interesting.

 

I won't stick words in the magic theatre man's mouth, I'll simply take them out of it:

 

"The ADA allows for legitimate physical qualifications; if you'd like to file a lawsuit against the military, go right ahead. "

 

Thanks for the help. Good thing I'm tall enough. Unfortunately, now I'm too old.

 

All generalizations are wrong -- said the solar powered brain in a dark room.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'd say you're also too stupid to be in the military. How hard is it to understand that:

 

it's illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of religion

it isn't illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation

 

...so that's why the ACLU sued on the basis of religious discrimination, and not sexual orientation. Duh.

 

[Gene P 10]

WOW!! I hate to get into this fray but I just have one question. What GOOD purpose did the ACLU serve here? Where will there be a benefit to anyone? I am not seeing it. Our Troop is chartered by a military unit (I won't say what it is for fear of being turned in!!), we recieve direct funding from a military unit and most of our boys come from the post. I am sure we will get a charter elsewhere and that is not the issue with me, I just do not see the purpose of this case. As far as this matter being settled, many grass roots issues start this way, with Americans voicing their dissent or support of an issue. As someone who has defended the country and our way of life, I will surely send letters to my congressman, the President and the Secretary of Defense about this issue and I hope other will as well. I am sure certain members will find fault with what I have posted but just answer for me, what good purpose did the ACLU serve here?

 

[dsteele 20]

Gene P -- Keep on a goin' guy! You're on the right track.

 

This is the last time I'll adress Merlyn -- who has finally resorted to more name calling and otherwise belittling others . . .

 

when he said, "I'd say you're also too stupid to be in the military. How hard is it to understand that:

 

it's illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of religion

it isn't illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation

 

...so that's why the ACLU sued on the basis of religious discrimination, and not sexual orientation. Duh."

 

I've been called a lot of things. Most of which I deserved at one time or another. Stupid isn't one of them.

 

Merlyn, I thought better of you. Who are you to question my intelligence? It is the small minded that attack the intellect in the face of an argument.

 

I don't call you stupid because you don't believe in God. I call you an atheist. Your term, not mine.

 

I find it interesting that you cast homosexuals out on their own. You said, "It isn't illegal for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation." You don't seem to have a problem with this. Interesting. So you're only concerned with your own self interest -- the absence and elimination of God.

 

I'm sorry, sir. I can not accept your nature. I'm sure you can't accept mine, either. I'm fine with that.

 

But don't call me stupid. That's a gross overgeneralization by a man on a losing wicket.

 

Pontius Pilote knew how to wash his hands. It's time I do the same thing. Adieu.

 

The previous paragraph may not have meant much to you, but it had symbolic meaning to those who believe.

 

I'm done with this thread.

 

Unc.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

unc writes:

I find it interesting that you cast homosexuals out on their own. You said, "It isn't illegal for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation." You don't seem to have a problem with this.

 

I didn't indicate one way or the other; it's simply a fact. It ISN'T illegal for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I haven't indicated if I think it should or should not be illegal.

 

But that's a big hint why the ACLU didn't sue the military for discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation. You don't win court cases by making stupid, losing arguments.

 

Speaking of stupid, losing arguments, the Dept. of Justice, which is acting as the DoD's attorney's, are trying to win by ignoring reality. If you read their press release on it:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm

...

In entering into the partial settlement agreement, DOD admitted no wrongdoing and expressly denied that it sponsors BSA organizations

...

 

So, even though the Boy Scouts themselves have stated that the DoD sponsors organizations, the DoD is insisting they don't. And even though official base newspapers like this one:

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/SoundOFF/archives/SO2002/Feb28/html/Cover-Story.htm

.. explicitly mention that Fort Meade's Provost Marshal Office is becoming the new charter organization, the DoD insists they don't charter any.

 

And then the DOJ press release says:

and, even if the Department of Defense were to sponsor BSA organizations, that any such sponsorship would violate the Establishment Clause.

 

So, even if the DoD DID charter BSA units, the DOJ says it would be legal - but the DoD doesn't.

 

So why did the DOJ agree to a settlement? They insist that the DoD doesn't charter units, and if they do, it would be legal. But (just for laughs, I guess) they'll agree to stop doing what they insist they don't do, and even if they did do it they wouldn't have to stop. But they will.

 

If you know anything about judges, they really dislike being lied to. The DOJ is lying - and very, very badly. Even statements by the BSA damns the DOJ's insistence that they don't sponsor units, because BSA officials contradict the DOJ's lies:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=111704a4_dmscouts

...

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base has sponsored Troop 784 for about 35 years, said Joseph Daniszewski, executive director of the Catalina Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

...

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the judge specifically mentions the DOJ's dishonesty when she rules on the other issues in this case. Like I said, judges hate being lied to, especially when you're OBVIOUSLY lying to them, and yet you continue to keep lying to their faces. That's incredibly stupid on the part of the DOJ.

 

So, if it makes any of the people in this thread a feel better, the lying and stupidity of the Department of Justice far, far outweighs anything I've seen here. In spades.

[evmori 11]

unc,

You're missing the point! It's called selective persecution! The ACLU has a vendetta for the BSA & will stop at nothing to destroy it! Doesn't make any difference what value the BSA has or that the military can discriminate based on sexual orientation. The ACLU doesn't have an axe to grind with the military!

 

The ACLU claims to be a defender of the Constitution. It would be real nice if they actually read & understood the document before they tried to defend it!

 

Typical of an ACLUer. Declare the person questioning your motives inept therefore eliminating the need to address their valid question.

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[whitewater 10]

I liked Gene P's question:

 

"What GOOD purpose did the ACLU serve here? Where will there be a benefit to anyone?"

 

The BSA has done more than any other youth organization to positively shape the development of young men and boys in the last 100 years. But since it is politically incorrect to discourage atheism or homosexuality, they are vilified with the likes of the KKK.

 

It's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Kinda like the Seinfeld show where he's never happy with a girl because he can't stop focusing on her flaws. There is a lot more to the Boy Scouts than the reliious aspect and I can virtually guarantee that the homosexual issue never comes up in a Troop setting.

 

I find it impossible to believe that the intentions of the activists involved in the attacks against the Boy Scouts are simply trying to ensure that the letter of the law is followed. They will continue to go after the Scouts even when there is no direct sponsorship of Troops. They are trying to gain acceptance for their beliefs and lifestyles and are trying to make an example of the Boy Scouts. In the end it's the boys that suffer.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

While I hate to be a contrarian, I guess when I must I must.

 

Can anybody here tell me when the ACLU itself actually changed any part of American Life?

 

Yes, they have been connected with innumerable lawsuits, but the last I checked all the "COURT" and really heavy emphasis on COURT decisions that were made were indeed made by judges. Not the ACLU. The ACLU may take cases to court, but its the court that decides the outcome. Perhaps the ACLU is out to get the BSA, I dont know, but I do know that nothing the ACLU ever decided ever was put into public policy. What the Courts decide is put into public policy. The ACLU didnt say Military Bases cant sponsor troops, the Pentagon did.

 

If you dont like Court decisions, they perhaps we need to reform the Courts, attacking the ACLU may feel good,but it doesnt change the apparatus (the Courts) that actually decide the issues.

[acco40 95]

I agree OGE. The ACLU is in the business of defending civil liberties. Usually, civil liberties only come under attack when a majority impinges on a minority. Thus, the ACLU has brought many cases to court that the vast majority of Americans did not like. I, for one, admire that.

 

When "we" think in terms of generality, we tend to agree on many things. But when nasty details rear their ugly heads, we seem to forget or lessen our belief in civil liberties. Should journalists have the right to keep their sources anonymous? Do all Americans deserve due process under the law? When Illinois Nazis wanted to demonstrate, the ACLU defended them. Most of us want the right, as stated in the US constitution, to peacefully assemble. Should we allow Nazis? Should we allow them only in certain places, i.e. not in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods? The details get ugly. Did some of the actions of Ashcroft/Homeland Security violate basic civil liberties? Should we expect some compromise in our civil liberties in these trying times? All good questions.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The predecessor to the DoD case, the Poloncarz case, is the only instance where the BSA opened up one of its programs to gays and atheists.

 

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n020498a.html

 

Back when Explorers were part of the BSA's discriminatory program and not Learning for Life, Chicago sponsored the City Law Department's Legal Explorer Post. When Kevin Poloncarz applied as a volunteer, he was rejected for being gay. The ACLU sued, and the above press release is the announced settlement where the city of Chicago agreed to drop 28 BSA units.

 

A week after the above announcement, the BSA announced that Exploring would turn into "Career Exploring" and be moved into Learning for Life, and no longer discriminate, thus opening that program to gays and atheists.