1st Amendment and BSA

[Beavah 205]

I don't care whether yeh volunteer for a public or private club, Merlyn. YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs, robot team, science olympiad, whatever.

 

When yeh care about and work with kids in any program, yeh learn that helpin' them is what matters, and you find ways to deal with whatever bureaucracy yeh happen to be saddled with. Da "action" in this business isn't at the policy level, it's at the human level.

 

Come join us at da human level. Care for kids. Whatever kids yeh feel you can help. Build a program or support an old one. Invite all comers or just take the kids yeh feel you have the ability to help.

 

Put your time where your mouth is. Prove that we're wrong about what makes the "best kind of citizen." Do more and do it better than an average Scoutmaster. Care more than an average church youth director.

 

I double-dare yeh.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, your "offer" is as genuine as your "concern" for atheist kids. I'd say more, but it would just create work for the moderators.

[evmori 11]

Your attempts to get Merlyn involved are admirable Beavah, but I wouldn't count on Merlyn taking you up on your offers. If he did, he would actually have to get involved and that's not going to happen.

[skeptic 992]

Yeah Beavah, I would not hold my breath. That's for sure. "M" would have to focus on something beyond his own ego.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

More holier-than-thou poseurs who denigrate the rights of atheists - yawn.

[evmori 11]

More holier-than-thou poseurs who denigrate the rights of atheists - yawn.

 

More holier-than-thou poseur who denigrates the rights of non-atheists - yawn.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually Merlyn only wants the BSA to be treated as the private organization the Sureme Court said it was.

 

This does mean that no taxpayer money is to be spent on an organization that discriminates on a legal basis

 

 

aaaa

[Beavah 205]

Actually Merlyn only wants the BSA to be treated as the private organization the Sureme Court said it was.

 

Nah, OGE, if yeh look earlier in da thread, he was proposing a higher level of restriction to access. Even though such restriction is not just beyond what can be expected of private organizations, it's contrary to current law. The point is to eliminate or marginalize programs yeh disagree with. The argument just morphs to take whatever form or step is expedient to achieve that end.

 

This does mean that no taxpayer money is to be spent on an organization that discriminates on a legal basis

 

Yah, where do yeh get that? Taxpayer money is spent on private organizations all the time, and on organizations that discriminate on a legal basis. If it weren't, we'd need to nationalize a lot more industries and services. That may be what some (maybe you?) want, but it ain't exactly consistent with our historical view of liberty.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[GernBlansten 10]

Beavah-"Yah, where do yeh get that? Taxpayer money is spent on private organizations all the time, and on organizations that discriminate on a legal basis. If it weren't, we'd need to nationalize a lot more industries and services. That may be what some (maybe you?) want, but it ain't exactly consistent with our historical view of liberty. "

Please enlighten us with a specific example where a discriminating organization is getting public funding that restricts its services to their discriminating policies. I really don't think you can.

[SSScout 1615]

I wonder how much rent BSA paid to the USArmy for use of Fort APHill?

 

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Rent? you gotta be kidding!

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

My point is that I understand that discriminatory organizations take public money all the time. However, those organizations cannot discriminate in the same way in offering their services.

The Savation Army takes public money to run shelters. They are discriminatory in their membership just like the BSA. But they don't only serve Christians. They must serve all the public with their public funds.

 

How can a BSA unit be owned by a public school, but not allow athiest or gay students to be served?

[skeptic 992]

In regard to A.P.Hill, you will find if you go back and look, that over the years the BSA has paid large amounts to cover various costs at the Jambo. They also have built or developed areas at their expense that will remain for use going forward. The entire arrangement has been beneficial for the Army, as well as BSA. The base has had the opportunity to develop and practice emergency support procedures by hosting the event over the years, training really hard to simulate. Obviously the medical response to heat issues and lightning are well known as challenges recently. But, when hurricane Bob hit the site in 1985, they had a far greater challenge. And they met it well. The the efficiency with which they gathered wet bedding in order to dry it, and issued temporary blankets to about 80% of the participants was remarkable.

 

The interaction of the military and BSA has always been a mutually beneficial one.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Nah, OGE, if yeh look earlier in da thread, he was proposing a higher level of restriction to access

 

For ALL organizations, equally. Public schools can refuse to allow ANY outside organizations, which is ZERO ACCESS, and yes, THAT is also perfectly legal.

[SSScout 1615]

Thank you, skeptic, I always wondered about that. Wonder if it was "market value". Naw, I guess that's not really a concern. The USArmy is a publicly supported (!) organization and might view helping the BSA as part of it's possible purview.

I do like the idea of BSA having it's own site, area politics not withstanding. Now, the USArmy can use it's training site for all of it's time, without worrying about Jamboree time.