LDS membership declines

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ed, of course you are correct, the governmental entity is also being dishonest for chartering an organization that is inherently discriminatory (not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact the Supreme Court that it was fine)

 

So, if Merlyn said the Chartering Organizations and the BSA were both dishonest, would that be better? Would acknowleding the wrong doing of another entity mitigate the BSA's dishonesty? Does having a partner in dishonesty somehow take away sonme of the sting of being dishonest?

 

If you found your teen age son drunk as a skunk in your basement and all he can say is "Hey, my best friend is drunk as well" does that soothe your feelings towards your son?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Lisabob, LFL units are not in the list. They are listed as "NATIONAL CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS USING THE TRADITIONAL SCOUTING PROGRAM"

 

OGE writes:

the governmental entity is also being dishonest for chartering an organization that is inherently discriminatory (not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact the Supreme Court that it was fine)

 

Absolutely not, OGE. The supreme court has said nothing of the kind, and all court rulings I've seen have said the exact opposite.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Well, I tried

[evmori 11]

Ed writes:

But that doesn't matter does it, Merlyn

 

No it doesn't, Ed. Why would it?

 

Why would it???? You must be kidding? I hate using cliches but it takes two to tango. The charter partner that accepts the charter is just culpable as the BSA. Therefore the charter partner is just as honest as the BSA! You even agreed to this is in another topic much like this one, Merlyn. Are you back peddling now?

 

Yeah OGE that would be accurate. And so was your statement about SCOTUS. They ruled the BSA's discrimination was legal.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No Ed, when one party in a contract is being deliberately dishonest, you can't assume both sides are equally culpable.

 

Besides, because other people may or may not be dishonest does not excuse the BSA's continued, deliberate, illegal dishonesty.

[evmori 11]

No Ed, when one party in a contract is being deliberately dishonest, you can't assume both sides are equally culpable.

 

And you know for an absolute fact the BSA is being deliberately dishonest and the charter partner is not?

 

Besides, because other people may or may not be dishonest does not excuse the BSA's continued, deliberate, illegal dishonesty.

 

And you have proof of this? Based on your 2 year old list? I have a list that is 3 years old that shows the BSA no longer has units with those organizations.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Sorry, Ed, I don't understand your answer. These are the statements I made in the post. We don't have to worry about the Supreme Court statement as we both agree BSA's discriminatory position is legal and I am fine with that

 

A. So, if Merlyn said the Chartering Organizations and the BSA were both dishonest, would

that be better?

 

B. Would acknowleding the wrong doing of another entity mitigate the BSA's dishonesty?

 

C. Does having a partner in dishonesty somehow take away sonme of the sting of being

dishonest?

 

D. If you found your teen age son drunk as a skunk in your basement and all he can say

is "Hey, my best friend is drunk as well" does that soothe your feelings towards your

son?

 

I had thought I framed these as yes or no questions, but perhaps I was wrong. When you say

 

"Yeah OGE that would be accurate" what is accurate?

 

In the first statement if Merlyn said both sides were dishonest that would be better for you? And Merlyn has aleady weighed in he wont be saying that but I was trying to make a point

 

In the second statement I asked if another entity does wrong, does that mitigate the BSA's dishonesty? Is that accurate?, the BSA is less dishonest because another entity did wrong?

 

In the third statement I asked if having a partner in dishonesty takes away the sting of being dishonest, does it? If I have a partner and we both lie cheat and steal is it not as bad as long as we have each other?

 

And the fourth statment, does your son having a drinking buddy make you feel better that both are drunk?

 

What is accuate about the post?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, your pathetic fingerpointing does nothing to change the BSA's dishonesty. They said five years ago they would stop chartering units to government entities, yet they have hundreds chartered to law enforcement agencies, correctional institutions, and so on.

 

The BSA is dishonest. If you don't like that, tell the BSA to stop being dishonest, don't whine to me.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I see another thread has degenerated into the same old Merlyn show.

 

The BSA is a service provider, eh? If a government entity chooses to contract with it for services, the burden of complying with its legal obligations is on the government entity, not the contract services provider. So to make any claim about da BSA based on who contracts with it for services is being dishonest.

 

A government entity contracting with the BSA can be being perfectly honest. Government entities are run by elected officials selected by the local populace. If da local populace strongly support Scouting, then that's what the government entity should do if it wants to be honest to the instructions of its constituents, the citizen voters. In fact, doin' anything else is dishonest.

 

Now, Merlyn proposes a legal theory that a town or other local government entity sponsoring a BSA unit is a violation of the U.S. Constitution on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds. That is a legal theory only. To my knowledge, that theory has not yet been accepted by any court capable of setting precedent (i.e. an appellate-level court). So all we have is speculation that such a legal theory may prevail if contested.

 

So absent a precedent that is binding, there's nuthin' wrong with what the town is doing, and nothing wrong with the BSA accepting the application of the town. Even in the face of the precedent, it is the right of the people of the town through their government to contest the precedent if they so choose. That's not dishonest either. It's democracy.

 

I reckon the only person being dishonest in this whole thing is Merlyn.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah 205]

As to LDS, I agree with those who state that I've never had anything but the nicest interactions with folks. They're good friends and good supporters of Scouting.

 

Now, I think they could improve da way they administer and use the scoutin' program in the wards. We've discussed before how their accident rate is high and all that. But it doesn't change that they're good folks and good friends.

 

And as a corporation in the business of providin' services, we of course are mindful of the needs of one of our biggest customers. That's just common sense, eh? That's another case of Merlyn's lobby bein' penny-wise and pound-foolish in their approach, eh? If instead of threatenin' litigation and gettin' the public school sponsors dropped they had encouraged more public schools to sponsor units and taught 'em how to vote, they could have changed da BSA's policies by now.

 

But it's da liberal way to try to force things on people through the courts, rather than trust to the intelligence and kindness of your fellow citizens. Makes for da worst sort of public policy when it gets anywhere at all.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori 11]

Ed, your pathetic fingerpointing does nothing to change the BSA's dishonesty. They said five years ago they would stop chartering units to government entities, yet they have hundreds chartered to law enforcement agencies, correctional institutions, and so on.

 

Pot meet kettle!

 

The BSA is dishonest. If you don't like that, tell the BSA to stop being dishonest, don't whine to me.

 

Merlyn, proof please! And something more current than a two year old list.

 

OGE - A

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Wrong, Beavah. Knowingly offering an illegal contract is illegal. Keep trying to apply that whitewash if you like, but it doesn't change the BSA's dishonest conduct.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Thank You(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)