Jump to content

article: Scout's honor


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SemperParatus,

 

What specific "inalienable right" are you accusing maddog of denying Merlyn? Or was your post purely tongue-in-cheek?

 

Here are some thoughts on individual rights and the concept of tolerance:

 

I will fight to the death for Merlyns right to express himself in public forums. Furthermore, I tolerate his being.

 

However, he does not have a right to express himself in every forum including Internet forums designed to support Scouts and Scouters, unless the forum moderator gives him that right. Which of course, is the moderators right.

 

And, while I recognize Merlyn as a follow citizen in this country, and of Gods world, I do not enjoy his thoughts. In fact, I do not tolerate his thoughts. I have no respect for his ideas which deny the existence of God. These thoughts are the folly of the spiritually blind.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this from a tactical view, the goal of the ACLU and poster like Merlyn_LeRoy is the attempt to pigeon hole the BSA as a non-religious, public organization.

 

"The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership group. As with any private organization, Boy Scouts retains the constitutional right to establish and maintain standards for membership. Anyone who supports the values of Scouting and meets these standards is welcome to join the organization." www.bsalegal.org/faqs-113.htm

 

If the BSA was anything other then what it is, a private organization, based in reverence for God Almighty, and living up to the saying "Fun with a purpose." I wouldn't even have considered my Son amongst the ranks.

 

Why is it so hard for someone to understand it's ok for people to associate with others who share similar ideas, interests, and goals? It's like forcing the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to admit anti-Semites as members. It doesn't make any sense.

 

"As the Supreme Court has recognized, "there can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." "Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." This is especially important in the context of associations that seek to foster moral virtue in young people.

 

In short, the Founders viewed a virtuous citizenry as an essential pre-condition of republican self-government, and they encouraged the development of private associations that, like the Boy Scouts, were devoted to the development of moral character." www.claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/000629eastman.html

 

All I can say is;

 

Don't Tread on Me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BSA is a private organization and, as such, can discriminate. It cant both discriminate and accept government assistance. This has been pointed out above and in many other threads. I think NWScouter has explained it well. Troops can still meet in public facilities, camp on public land and have adult members employed by government agencies. They can not be sponsored directly by the government.

 

Ed, K9, Gungho can you accept this?

 

Merlin, if the BSA were to tell all troo

Link to post
Share on other sites

While government-chartered BSA units are an important issue, it isn't the only issue. HUD grants, $1/year leases of public land, Learning for Life teaching ethics to atheist students while being a wholly-owned subsidiary of an organization that denigrates atheists, etc, etc are still problems even after all government chartered BSA units are gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that as long as people still respond to Merlyn ranting, he won't quit! It gives him great pleasure to see the amount of turmoil he can cause. I too agree 100% with K9. I don't like anything Merlyn has had to say about the Boy Scouts, I don't care for his politics, and I feel sorry that he does not believe in our Creator. However, I will defend to the death his right to believe whatever he wants as long as it doesn't stomp on anyone else's rights.

 

It is too bad he cannot defend his position without the help of radical groups like the ACLU, but I can even live with their frivilous lawsuits that tie up the court system indefinately and cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year. What I can't live with is the unimportant issues in the totality of human kind the ACLU and people like Merlyn try to change.

 

I can think of many examples where the ACLU could be fighting for the good of mankind, but choose not to because those issues don't receive the press coverage and don't fit into their political agenda.

 

Dialouge is a good thing when you are talking to someone who may attempt to see your point of view...but when that courtesy isn't present, why continue to humor people like Merlyn. I will continue to read Merlyn's posts because I might actually learn something by it, but this will be my last response to him. If he is not answered, he has nothing to talk about.

 

God Bless you all and God Bless the BSA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, no amount of explanation gets through to you. I'm not trying to end the BSA, just illegal government support of the BSA, and that's very doable as ACLU cases against military sponsorship and the Balboa park lease have shown. Don't pop a vein when the 12% of Cub Scout packs chartered to public schools have to find private charters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I trying to understand what argument you can possibly make of why it's ok for my Son to be discriminated against if my Son enters either place as a Scout. Last that I recall, no one here is calling for the same places to be closed to anyone else for their membership requirements.

 

If only Atheist and Gays paid the taxes for the public schools and parks, then I would concede to your argument. but as it stays your argument is rather weak.

 

Our inalienable rights, affects both sides of this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love free speech and the open exchange of ideas as much as any one else. I have no desire to ask the mods to close this thread and won't. I would like to ask everyone to just let this thread finally die a natural death. It has outlived it's usefullness. It has turned into senseless bickering and rehashing of things that were said 3 or 4 pages back. Let it go guys. Let it die. There are and will be other threads to comment in.

 

Happy New Year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

gungho4scouts writes:

I trying to understand what argument you can possibly make of why it's ok for my Son to be discriminated against if my Son enters either place as a Scout. Last that I recall, no one here is calling for the same places to be closed to anyone else for their membership requirements.

 

And no one is calling for the places to be closed to Scouts. Scouts can still meet in public parks, Scouts can still meet in public schools (assuming the school has its facilities open to the public; some schools only allow school activities in their facilities).

 

If only Atheist and Gays paid the taxes for the public schools and parks, then I would concede to your argument. but as it stays your argument is rather weak.

 

You don't seem to understand what I'm arguing about.

 

I'm not talking about Scouts meeting in public parks. Parks are public property, and have to be open to everyone - me, you, scouts, an atheist group, a gay group, a KKK group, anyone.

 

I'm talking about cases such as Balboa Park, where the BSA leases 18 acres for $1/year.

 

Can I rent 18 acres in Balboa Park for $1 year? No.

 

Now, this is still public parkland. Can a San Diego resident use that land in July? Only if they are a BSA member, because the Boy Scouts reserve the entire summer months for only their members - and atheists and gays can't join.

 

So now here's 18 acres of a public park that is now reserved for a private, discriminatory club. Doesn't sound like a public park to me. Why is the government subsidising a private, discriminatory club by leasing land for $1/year?

 

I'm also not talking about Scouts meeting in public schools, I'm talking about public schools that charter e.g. a cub scout pack. That Pack is owned & operated by the school, according to the BSA's own website description of a chartering organization's relationship to its BSA unit. It's as if a public school decided to start a school chess club - then decided to use the program of a private, discriminatory national chess club that doesn't allow atheists or gays as members. Now you have a school chess club that discriminates, which is illegal. The same is true of a cub scout pack - a pack chartered by a public school means the school is illegally discriminating against atheists and gays.

 

Our inalienable rights, affects both sides of this issue.

 

Which is why public schools can't charter BSA packs. Public schools can't run a youth group that excludes atheists any more than it could have a baseball team that excludes atheists.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn said...

"Learning for Life teaching ethics to atheist students while being a wholly-owned subsidiary of an organization that denigrates atheists, etc, etc are still problems even after all government chartered BSA units are gone."

 

I understand your points about government agencies sponsoring BSA units, but Learning for Life as a program does not discriminate, so what is your problem with it?

 

Do you see a legal issue somewhere here?

I just don't see your point.

 

Even when the BSA creates a non-discriminatory program open to atheists, you're still not satisfied. What are you attacking?

 

I'm sorry, I can understand some points in your other arguments, but not this one.

 

YIS,

Cliff Golden

Scoutmaster Troop 33

DeKalb, Illinois

Link to post
Share on other sites

cliffgolden writes:

I understand your points about government agencies sponsoring BSA units, but Learning for Life as a program does not discriminate, so what is your problem with it?

 

Just what I stated; it's an organization which is wholly owned by a parent organization that denigrates atheists.

 

Imagine that the KKK tried to clean up its image by creating a nondiscriminatory subsidiary that admitted all races, yet the KKK remained an all-white organization, and fought many court battles to remain all white. Now imagine that this new nondiscriminatory organization wants to teach students, including non-white students, how to be ethical.

 

I'd tell them to get lost. They have no ethics to teach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn writes...

"I'd tell them to get lost. They have no ethics to teach."

 

You have a right to your opinion. That's all it is though, an opinion. One which most would view as harsh and unjust.

 

You admit there is no legal fight here. That was my concern. Your crusade against the BSA is based on your perceived violations of Constitutional rights.

 

Public funding toward the Learning for Life program is legal.

 

The BSA exists to provide a positive program for youth that includes a belief in a supreme being. Its primary purpose is not to discriminate against atheists. They provide an alternative program called Learning for Life that's open to atheists.

 

Using your logic, would you see public funding of bicycle racks as discrimination against quadraplegics?

 

Despite your unhappy views, Happy New Year to you Merlyn.

 

YIS,

Cliff Golden

Scoutmaster Troop 33

DeKalb, Illinois

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...