Why does bsalegal.org condone gross violations of the Scout Law?

[Deloe 10]

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that bsalegal.org is run by the Boy Scouts. I therefore find it difficult to understand the hosting of the this article: http://www.bsalegal.org/dailytra-165.htm .

 

For one thing, the article virtually drips of vitriol and contempt for the ACLU. Is calling someone a "Grinch" respectful? Dismissing someone's concerns as "mean-spirited" courteous? Referring to a statement as "Orwellian" friendly?

 

But the greatest violation of all is in the "trustworthy" category. I'd list every single sentence that includes a lie, but that would constitute such a large portion of the article that I don't know if it would fall under fair use. Instead I'll list them by paragraph and sentence:

1. P1S1

2. P2S1

3. P3S2

4. P4S1

5. P4S2

6. P5S1

7. P7S1

8. P7S2

9. P8S1

10. P9S1

11. P9S2

12. P11S1

13. P12S2

 

That's an average of more than one lie per paragraph, quite a feat considering how short the paragraphs are (and not all of the sentences have only one lie, either). It seems to me that bsalegal.org shouldn't post an article containing one lie, let alone more than 13.

 

Also, Mark Pulliam says he's a Scouting volunteer. Don't the actions of its volunteers reflect on the BSA, and shouldn't it therefore censure such an egregious display of dishonesty?

[LovetoCamp 9]

This has me so mad, I put ice in my coffee this morning.

[evmori 11]

Deloe,

1st off, welcome.

 

2nd - not sure where the lies are in the article. It seems accurate to me! Could be pick a couple of "lies" and explain your reasoning?

 

Thanks

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Laurie 10]

I'll second the welcome and the request for you to elaborate.

[acco40 95]

Laurie, it is called an "editorial." Bush is either, "saving our American way of life" or "indiscriminately butchering innocent Iraqis in his mad conquest to stamp his values on the Arab world." To many, these are bald face lies. to others, the gospel truth. The BSA is fighting legal battles on many fronts that involve money. Both sides hide behind a cloak of high moral values. What the BSA did was allow an article written by one individual, Mark Pulliam (gasp, a lawyer but also a Scouter) to be posted on their web site. Like most court cases, there is a legal battle, but just as important, there is also a battle for public opinion. As for myself, I found the article a typical "preaching to the choir" type statement. The crux of the article: "Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a "religious organization," and that by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore "advancing religion" and "religious indoctrination.  On this basis, Judge Jones concluded that the lease is invalid and the Scouts must be evicted, despite the fact that the Boy Scouts invested millions of dollars in capital improvements." is stated without much bias. The remainder of the article is, as you pointed out, filled with opinion and yes is not very scout-like in my estimation. Politics will to that to many.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Hmmmm . . . the good old Scout Law.

 

I get the idea that if the Demon Dogs M.C. broke into his house, Deloe would welcome them, offer them coffe and change the sheets before they raped his wife and daughters.

 

I suppose that describing Hitler as evil might be discourteous as well but that's what he was.

 

The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves.

 

Which is more important: trustworthy, courteous or clean?

[Deloe 10]

To go through each of the 13 sentence would take quite a while, so let's start with the quote acco40 posted.

"Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a 'religious organization,' "

Lie. Jones never said that. The BSA does not merely believe in God; one of its major objectives is the promotion of religion and religious values. And on top of that, during the Dale case, the BSA argued that they were exempt from anti-discrimation laws under a religious exemption. So apparently the BSA is a religious organization when it's convenient, and not one when it is inconvenient.

 

"by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore 'advancing religion' and 'religious indoctrination.' "

Lie. The decision did NOT declare that Scouts were prohibited from leasing city-owned land. It declared that Scouts could not be given preferential treatment.

 

I disagree with acco40's implied claim that this is within the bounds of editoral license. Editorial license allows a writer to write with a particular bias, to present only one side of a story, and to state opinions. It does not extend to outright lies. An editorial is one's opinion about what actually happened, not one's opinion on something that didn't happen. And yet Pulliam's entire argument is based on a complete misrepresention of the case. His version is so at odds with the facts that this can not be properly be called an editorial opposing the Barnes-Wallace case, but rather

one opposing a ruling that never took place. There is a difference between editorial and fiction, and this is clearly fiction.

[Deloe 10]

"I get the idea that if the Demon Dogs M.C. broke into his house, Deloe would welcome them, offer them coffe and change the sheets before they raped his wife and daughters."

Well, I think that pretty much tells me how concern you have for such values as respect and courtesy. I take it you don't feel bound by the rules of decorum?

 

"I suppose that describing Hitler as evil might be discourteous as well but that's what he was."

I take it you've never heard of Godwin's Law?

 

"The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves."

It does not take much study to discover that that is quite wrong. The case I am currently discussing is called Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, not ACLU v. City of San Diego. While the ACLU is providing legal services, they are not a party to this lawsuit. The actual petitionors, Barnes-Wallace et al., are residents of San Diego. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ACLU is acting out of malice rather than sincere principles, and the automatic assumption of this on the part of anyone who disagrees with you is evidence of a serious lack of empathy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You should also check out this article, by Pulliam and one of the lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation (which argues many of the cases for the BSA):

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6375

 

...

The city's betrayal of the Scouts followed an ACLU court victory last summer. Federal District Judge Napoleon Jones voided the Scouts' longtime lease of 18 acres at the city's Balboa Park. Contradicting the findings of many other federal and state courts, he announced that Scouting is a "religion"; therefore, he ruled, the lease violates church-state separation. He threw in a gratuitous insult, denouncing the Scouts as a group "at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm."

...

 

Even a non-lawyer reading the decision would know that the judge didn't say that Scouting is a "religion", but a "religious organization"; it's inexcusable for a lawyer to co-author an article for publication with such an obviously false statement.

[LovetoCamp 9]

We'll have to check the supply room and see if we have an Atheist Patrol shoulder patch now that there's two of you.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

FOG guilty of a "serious lack of empathy"? Say it ain't so!

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

FOG,

 

I have a feeling Rush Limbaugh would have agreed with you sometime back about the ACLU. Now however, it seems the ACLU has taken up his case over the police invading his medical privacy. Ain't life strange?

 

The ACLU does a lot of things I don't like either, but they've done a lot of good too. Thier purpose is to make sure that civil liberty laws are follwed to the letter. There are always going to be people in the majority who like things the way they are and don't want the minority to get the same guaranteed rights they have. Love them or hate them, that is what the ACLU tries to combat.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Deloe, I understand what you are saying about the difference between "lies" about factual matters, and opinions that you don't agree with. But let's assume that the article in question is simply an "opinion article." This still leaves the question, what is it doing on a BSA web site? I think that is the real question that the BSA would have a tough time answering. Putting strongly ideological articles that ridicule others, and call people names, on a BSA web site certainly represents a change in the BSA's public relations tactics (which is what the BSA Legal web site is really a part of.) I can go with you that far.

 

But, calling mixed statements of fact and opinion "lies" only clouds the issue and opens you up for criticism that is really off the main point. (In my opinion, of course.)

[molscouter 10]

deleted(This message has been edited by molscouter)

[Deloe 10]

Thanks, Merlyn. It's good to see that I am not alone in this. There's also the question of how the phrase "at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm" is a gratuitious insult. It seems to me that it is both factual and relevant. Surely the BSA would agree that values which conflict with their views are widely held by the public? I've sent an email to the California Bar Association expressing my concern regarding one of its members deliberately fostering public misunderstanding of the case. I don't know if this is considered an ethics violation, but it should be.

 

I'd also like to say something about the term "outsiders" as used in Fat Old Guy's post. I find that term to be unAmerican and xenophobic. America isn't supposed to be about "insiders" and "outsiders". Someone's concerns shouldn't be dismissed because "they aren't one of us".

 

It also reminds me of a speech I heard. You see, a certain organization wanted to come to Denver and discuss its viewpoint on civil rights. Many people, including the mayor, objected to these "outsiders", considering them to be "invading" for "mean spirted" reasons. Here's part of the response. 10 points to whoever knows what the missing organization name is.

 

"Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of ___ members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

 

___ members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

...

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America."