Judgment Day in the Supreme Court
Bill Bekkenhuis
very happy that this thing is going to come to a head in the Supreme Court.
This group has taught me more than any other on-line group I've participated
in how useless argument and evidence is in convincing people whose minds are
either made up or who are content to have institutions make their minds up for
them.
I initially hoped that the Supreme Court would refuse to review the case as
this would allow gays in Scouting in NJ to come out of the closet with less
fear of expulsion.
Now I'm hoping SCOTUS reviews the case because, win or lose, THEY will tell
the BSA what they are and what they are not.
Especially as the BSA seems too morally incapacitated to state unequivocally
whether they are private or public, religious or secular.
And then there is their bizarre condemnation of gays as immoral and unclean
and their relegation of atheists to second class citizens (which, as Mr.
Nelson could verify for himself if he would take two minutes to consult his
dictionary, has NOTHING to do with rights and EVERYTHING do with valuation and
status) while accepting both as leaders in their Learning for Life subsidiary.
Unless the court decides that gays cannot be a protected class under public
accommodation laws (and it seems they've supported such laws regarding gays
before), it seems that a court decision is going to communicate to the BSA and
its sponsors whether it is the private, religious organization with a right to
discriminate that they present themselves to be in court.
Because if they are, it will be open season on public school districts that
allow them access to public school students.
The BSA will have to work honestly for its membership, like every other
sectarian youth program.
And then, of course, there is the possibility that the court will find for
Dale and set a precedent the BSA will not be able to ignore.
--
Regards,
Bill Bekkenhuis <bekke...@fast.net>
<http://www.users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/>
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Mohandas Gandhi
Christopher J. Watson
Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
> Talking with some of the people of this group (SOME of the people...) makes me
> very happy that this thing is going to come to a head in the Supreme Court.
>
> This group has taught me more than any other on-line group I've participated
> in how useless argument and evidence is in convincing people whose minds are
> either made up or who are content to have institutions make their minds up for
> them.
ROFLOL!
Hey, that's the first time I've ever used that acronym. The only things that are
useless is your arguments and so called "evidence".
=)
Do I really need to look up how many times you've cited the APA,
"organizations"/institutions and so on and so forth? Do I really need to give DN
links to all the hard data and evidence you just repeatedly ignore while trying to
cling to various institution's political public relations statements as if they're
gospel?
What a joke!
=)
> And then there is their bizarre condemnation of gays as immoral and uncleanand
> their relegation of atheists to second class citizens (which, as Mr.
> Nelson could verify for himself if he would take two minutes to consult his
> dictionary, has NOTHING to do with rights and EVERYTHING do with valuation and
> status) <snip>
That's not bizarre at all. Atheism and homosexuality are stupid and undesirable,
respectively.
<snip>
Face it, all the BSA has to do is get a good lawyer who knows just a little bit
about the issue of homosexuality. If the Supremes aren't totally biased on the
issue a good lawyer will shred the numerous inanities of the behavioral activists,
beginning with "sexual desire people".
--W
--
"If the American blood products industry
had accepted the conclusions of CDC
experts showing that HIV was a bloodborne
disease, tens or hundreds of thousands of
Americans who are now dead might be alive.
Instead, for almost two years-hammered
on the one side by gay activists arguing that
screening would be discrimi-natory and on
the other by concern for profit margins-the
Red Cross and other institutions resisted
pleas to institute donor screening, killing
thousands of transfusion recipients and
nearly every American hemophiliac who
received even a single dose of clotting
factor between 1980 and 1985."
(Homosexuality and American Public
Life, Edited by Chrisopher Wolfe,
(Dallas: Spence Publishing Company)
1999, :122)
"Each new homosexual generation is being replenished
by heterosexuals whose productionof gay sons is entirely
unrelated to the dynamics of the epidemic. AIDS, therefore,
can keep mowing down gay men and rather than die out,
phalanx after phalanx will emerge from the trenches, ready to be
mowed down anew. The epidemic could literally go on forever."
(Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, Gabrielle Rotello)
Aaron Kuperman
that raises no federal questions worthy of their attention. Since the
New Jersey courts determined (rightly or wrongly) that BSA isn't
anti-gay based on its own policy, and that Dale was expelled for "being"
gay (as opposed to engaging in homosexual behavior or advocating gay
rights), it won't decide anything no matter what is held. If Dale wins,
BSA could expel someone for exhibiting homosexually oriented behavior or
support social acceptance for gays (since the Supreme COurt doesn't
review state findings of fact). IF BSA wins, unless they rewrite the
charter agreements or the handbooks, it wouldn't apply to a situation
where the charter organization supports a gay leader (e.g. if the
plaintiff in the Dale case was the church that sponsored in the troop
suing BSA for breach of contact).
I'm not expressing a view on the issue either way, only that Dale is a
useless vehicle to settle the issue, and the Supreme COurt will probably
decide not to accept the case.
whs
upon those engaging in such dreary practices.
Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
>
> Talking with some of the people of this group (SOME of the people...) makes me
> very happy that this thing is going to come to a head in the Supreme Court.
>
> This group has taught me more than any other on-line group I've participated
> in how useless argument and evidence is in convincing people whose minds are
> either made up or who are content to have institutions make their minds up for
> them.
>
> I initially hoped that the Supreme Court would refuse to review the case as
> this would allow gays in Scouting in NJ to come out of the closet with less
> fear of expulsion.
>
> Now I'm hoping SCOTUS reviews the case because, win or lose, THEY will tell
> the BSA what they are and what they are not.
>
> Especially as the BSA seems too morally incapacitated to state unequivocally
> whether they are private or public, religious or secular.
>
> And then there is their bizarre condemnation of gays as immoral and unclean
> and their relegation of atheists to second class citizens (which, as Mr.
> Nelson could verify for himself if he would take two minutes to consult his
> dictionary, has NOTHING to do with rights and EVERYTHING do with valuation and
Leanmc420
>
>Some of us welcome the inevitable backlash that the public will inflict
>upon those engaging in such dreary practices.
Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted policies.
Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders the BSA has
made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't manage to
offend so many other people with their policies.
Bill Nelson
> >whs wrote:
> >
...
>
> Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted policies.
> Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders the BSA has
> made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't manage to
> offend so many other people with their policies.
>
The GSUSA, IMHO, has avoided the issue by not having a pro homosexual
policy. What they have amounts to a free admittance policy. If you are
gay, you can be a member. period. That avoided their being attacked
by the gay community. No law suites, etc. Their policy on God is that
you can replace the word God with another spiritual word. Atheists
asked if they could replace God with something that does not represent
anything beyond self, and were told it was OK. So they pretty much
eliminated a reason to have the word God in the oath. I think the
question here is, do you stand for something, try to teach a moral code
of conduct and that it is important to acknowledge something more
powerful than mankind, and bare the brunt of attacks from people who
don't agree with your stand, or do you simply not stand for anything
(at least in these areas) and not bare the brunt of attacks....what
does this teach the Scouts in your care? Obviously, a number of
things, both positive and negative....either way....
Yours in Scouting,
Bill
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Bill Nelson
YiS,
Bill
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:09:04 -0500 Aaron Kuperman <akup...@bcpl.net>
wrote:
> More likely they will hold that this is an issue governed by state law
> that raises no federal questions worthy of their attention. Since the
> New Jersey courts determined (rightly or wrongly) that BSA isn't
> anti-gay based on its own policy, and that Dale was expelled for "being"
> gay (as opposed to engaging in homosexual behavior or advocating gay
> rights), it won't decide anything no matter what is held. If Dale wins,
> BSA could expel someone for exhibiting homosexually oriented behavior or
> support social acceptance for gays (since the Supreme COurt doesn't
> review state findings of fact). IF BSA wins, unless they rewrite the
> charter agreements or the handbooks, it wouldn't apply to a situation
> where the charter organization supports a gay leader (e.g. if the
> plaintiff in the Dale case was the church that sponsored in the troop
> suing BSA for breach of contact).
>
> I'm not expressing a view on the issue either way, only that Dale is a
> useless vehicle to settle the issue, and the Supreme COurt will probably
> decide not to accept the case.
>
>
> Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
> >
> > Talking with some of the people of this group (SOME of the people...) makes me
> > very happy that this thing is going to come to a head in the Supreme Court.
> >
> >
--
Aaron Kuperman
Not really a good "freedom of association" or "forced speech" issue
for several reasons.
First, if BSA would win it would effectively mean that any "private"
body could discriminate against any member of a protected class,
regardless of statutes. IF BSA could refuse to associate with gays in
violation of New Jersey's law, anyone could refuse to associate with
blacks, Jews, womenor the handciapped. By basically arguing that they
object to what Dale "is" rather than to any actions BSA put itself in a
position that they can win only if the Supreme Court is willing to
decide that all federal and state anti-discrimination laws are
unconstitutional.
Second, BSA didn't raise (in a timely way) the issue of whether Dale
was publicly asserting a political position contrary to scouting
principles. If they had argued that he was a well known "gay-rights
activist" and allowing him to join would violate their principles, then
they might have a 1st amendment argument. As an issue of fact that fails
since Dale was not "well known", and BSA was unable to convince the New
Jersey court that it is homophobic (the recent editions of the handbooks
lack anything anti-gay, suggesting that the issue was more of a
personality clash or the private prejudices of some scout executives
rather than institutional policy). Unless BSA adds language to the
application forms and handbooks that is clearly anti-gay (or at least,
anti-extramarital sexuality), I can't imagine a clear case that will
decide the issue (assuming BSA really has an anti-gay policy rather than
a policy of stating that scouters should exemplify conventional
family-oriented behavior).
An added issue not raised by Dale is whether the "right of
association" applies to BSA or to the chartered sponsor. Based on the
language of the contract between BSA and the sponsors, I'ld suggest that
as long as the sponsor relies on the handbooks' principles, they would
be on strong grounds for objecting if national failed to approve an
adult application based on sexual orientation (as long as behavior or
advocacy didn't become an issue).
Aaron
Bill Nelson
> Bill,
> Not really a good "freedom of association" or "forced speech" issue
> for several reasons.
>
> First, if BSA would win it would effectively mean that any "private"
> body could discriminate against any member of a protected class,
> regardless of statutes. IF BSA could refuse to associate with gays in
> violation of New Jersey's law, anyone could refuse to associate with
> blacks, Jews, womenor the handciapped. By basically arguing that they
> object to what Dale "is" rather than to any actions BSA put itself in a
> position that they can win only if the Supreme Court is willing to
> decide that all federal and state anti-discrimination laws are
> unconstitutional.
Yet the NJ court said that had the BSA had a statement in their mission
statement (or some other obvious place) stating that one of the reasons
they are in place is to protest homosexuality, then they could
discriminate. The fact that the BSA has a statement that says that all
Scouts should be morally straight, and that they feel that avowed
homosexuals are teaching the Scouts that it is OK to be an active
homoexual, does not seem to be strong enough for the court. Had they
had a stronger statement, then the NJ court said they would have ruled
differently. This seems to contradict what you stated above, or I
mis-understood what you were saying.
>
> Second, BSA didn't raise (in a timely way) the issue of whether Dale
> was publicly asserting a political position contrary to scouting
> principles. If they had argued that he was a well known "gay-rights
> activist" and allowing him to join would violate their principles, then
> they might have a 1st amendment argument. As an issue of fact that fails
> since Dale was not "well known", and BSA was unable to convince the New
> Jersey court that it is homophobic (the recent editions of the handbooks
> lack anything anti-gay, suggesting that the issue was more of a
> personality clash or the private prejudices of some scout executives
> rather than institutional policy). Unless BSA adds language to the
> application forms and handbooks that is clearly anti-gay (or at least,
> anti-extramarital sexuality), I can't imagine a clear case that will
> decide the issue (assuming BSA really has an anti-gay policy rather than
> a policy of stating that scouters should exemplify conventional
> family-oriented behavior).
I think that is what the BSA has. The issue today, IMHO, is that
'conventional behavior' is changing.
> An added issue not raised by Dale is whether the "right of
> association" applies to BSA or to the chartered sponsor. Based on the
> language of the contract between BSA and the sponsors, I'ld suggest that
> as long as the sponsor relies on the handbooks' principles, they would
> be on strong grounds for objecting if national failed to approve an
> adult application based on sexual orientation (as long as behavior or
> advocacy didn't become an issue).
> Aaron
>
That all depends on the role of National in membership. I think one
would argue, pretty effectively, both ways on this one.
Well, it is interesting, we shall see if the Court decides to take the
NJ question up or not.
YiS,
Bill
Leanmc420
>
>On 04 Jan 2000 11:56:22 GMT lean...@aol.com (Leanmc420) wrote:
>> >whs wrote:
>> >
>...
>>
>> Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted policies.
>> Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders the BSA
>has
>> made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't manage to
>> offend so many other people with their policies.
>>
>
>The GSUSA, IMHO, has avoided the issue by not having a pro homosexual
>policy. What they have amounts to a free admittance policy. If you are
>gay, you can be a member. period. That avoided their being attacked
>by the gay community. No law suites, etc.
Also the lesbian community . . . and the BSA could have a similar policy that
excluded people on the basis of avowing their being in a sexual relationship
outside of marriage rather than on sexual orientation. This policy could apply
to homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This would allow the BSA to keep
their moral stance.
>Their policy on God is that
>you can replace the word God with another spiritual word. Atheists
>asked if they could replace God with something that does not represent
>anything beyond self, and were told it was OK. So they pretty much
>eliminated a reason to have the word God in the oath.
How does this differ from the current BSA policy of not defining God? Isn't it
possible for someone who believes that God doesn't represent anything greater
than one's self to be a member of the BSA?
>I think the
>question here is, do you stand for something, try to teach a moral code
>of conduct and that it is important to acknowledge something more
>powerful than mankind, and bare the brunt of attacks from people who
>don't agree with your stand, or do you simply not stand for anything
>(at least in these areas) and not bare the brunt of attacks....what
>does this teach the Scouts in your care? Obviously, a number of
>things, both positive and negative....either way....
>
There are two problems with your portrayal of the BSA's stances on these
issues. The first is, the BSA doesn't teach that God is powerful than mankind;
they don't teach any definition of God at all. Or so you've told me. The
second problem is that their exclusion of homosexuals isn't based on any
individuals moral conduct at all. Its based on the BSA knowing they are
homosexual regardless of their actual conduct.
This is why I think the BSA is being really dumb about these issues. All the
BSA teaches anyone who looks at these policies is that the BSA national can't
come up with good polices.
whs
Anyone seen a Senior Girl Scout Troop or Mariner Scout Ship in
action in the last decade or two!!! :-)
YISS;
Bill Sills
Leanmc420 wrote:
>
> >whs wrote:
> >
> >Some of us welcome the inevitable backlash that the public will inflict
> >upon those engaging in such dreary practices.
>
whs
much of anything either. Girls simply drop out after cadettes.
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> On 04 Jan 2000 11:56:22 GMT lean...@aol.com (Leanmc420) wrote:
> > >whs wrote:
> > >
> ...
> >
> > Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted policies.
> > Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders the BSA has
> > made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't manage to
> > offend so many other people with their policies.
> >
>
> The GSUSA, IMHO, has avoided the issue by not having a pro homosexual
> policy. What they have amounts to a free admittance policy. If you are
> gay, you can be a member. period. That avoided their being attacked
> by the gay community. No law suites, etc. Their policy on God is that
> you can replace the word God with another spiritual word. Atheists
> asked if they could replace God with something that does not represent
> anything beyond self, and were told it was OK. So they pretty much
> eliminated a reason to have the word God in the oath. I think the
> question here is, do you stand for something, try to teach a moral code
> of conduct and that it is important to acknowledge something more
> powerful than mankind, and bare the brunt of attacks from people who
> don't agree with your stand, or do you simply not stand for anything
> (at least in these areas) and not bare the brunt of attacks....what
> does this teach the Scouts in your care? Obviously, a number of
> things, both positive and negative....either way....
>
> Yours in Scouting,
> Bill
> --
David Stephens
Leanmc420 wrote:
> Also the lesbian community . . . and the BSA could have a similar policy that
> excluded people on the basis of avowing their being in a sexual relationship
> outside of marriage rather than on sexual orientation.
The jist of this is in the boy scout handbook.
David S.
Aaron Kuperman
adults?
David Stephens (cd...@flash.net) wrote:
Aaron Kuperman
policy in the published literature, and therefore held that being anti-gay
is NOT a core belief of BSA, therefore their 1st amendment rights weren't
violated (whereas apparently they would be if they were required to accept
an atheist, anarchist or anti-environmentalist as a leader). Objecting to
someone being "gay" is dumb since a person can be "gay" even though they
have a conventional lifestyle and oppose gay rights. But while BSA painted
itself into a corner in the Dale case, that means the case is of little
precedential value
[posted from home, not on company time]
: Yet the NJ court said that had the BSA had a statement in their mission
: statement (or some other obvious place) stating that one of the reasons
: they are in place is to protest homosexuality, then they could
: discriminate. The fact that the BSA has a statement that says that all
: Scouts should be morally straight, and that they feel that avowed
: homosexuals are teaching the Scouts that it is OK to be an active
: homoexual, does not seem to be strong enough for the court. Had they
: had a stronger statement, then the NJ court said they would have ruled
: differently. This seems to contradict what you stated above, or I
: mis-understood what you were saying.
: >
: > Second, BSA didn't raise (in a timely way) the issue of whether Dale
: > was publicly asserting a political position contrary to scouting
: YiS,
: Bill
Leanmc420
>
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>
>> Also the lesbian community . . . and the BSA could have a similar policy
>that
>> excluded people on the basis of avowing their being in a sexual
>relationship
>> outside of marriage rather than on sexual orientation.
>
>The jist of this is in the boy scout handbook.
>
It would be a much better actual policy were it official. Then the BSA could
teach its moral values and not discriminate based solely on sexual orientation.
>David S.
Leanmc420
>The GSUSA is certainly a wonderfully managed role model for the BSA.
>Anyone seen a Senior Girl Scout Troop or Mariner Scout Ship in
>action in the last decade or two!!! :-)
>
>YISS;
>Bill Sills
>
The BSA's exclusion of homosexuals has nothing to do with its program, as its
exclusion has nothing to do with actual sexual activity. I really don't care
how well the GSUSA implements its program; so long as its policies are good and
make sense they are a role model for the BSA. Because the BSA's position of
homosexuals is goofy.
The BSA could make a policy that stood up for traditional values of no sex
outside of marriage, and hold homosexuals and heterosexuals to it equally.
Individual troops could decide if individual leaders were fit for their troops,
according to the values of their chartering organzation. Any leader who
encouraged Scouts to experiment with sex would be thrown out, just as any
leader who encouraged the use of drugs would be.
In other words, the BSA should decide what kind of *behavior* is unacceptable,
and not make prejudgements about individuals based solely on stereotypes of
particular sexual orientations.
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>>
>> >whs wrote:
>> >
>> >Some of us welcome the inevitable backlash that the public will inflict
>> >upon those engaging in such dreary practices.
>>
The First Geer family
> The GSUSA is certainly a wonderfully managed role model for the BSA.
> Anyone seen a Senior Girl Scout Troop or Mariner Scout Ship in
> action in the last decade or two!!! :-)
Sure is. For an example an adult male can only be a GSUSA troop leader IF
and ONLY IF there is an adult female who is the actual troop leader and the
male is just like an Assistant Scout Master. However, an adult female can be
a Scout or Pack Master without needing an male male as a co-leader. But than
I guess that isn't discrimination.
Bill Nelson
No Boy Scout can change the phrase Duty to God to something else,
Girl Scouts can. Also, every adult member of the BSA has to subscribe
to the Declaration of Religious Principles, which is part of the BSA
by-laws and is printed on the adult applications (in part) and fully in
the Advancement Committee's handbook (I agree with those who say they
should print the full DRP on the application or shorten the official one
to what is on the application). Anyway, the full DRP defines God as the
'leading and ruling power of the universe'. This is consistant with the
WOSM definition of something greater than mankind. (see the recently
posted rec.scouting.issues FAQ) From my experience in and outside of my
troop, God is always portrayed to the Scouts as something greater than
mankind.
The BSA's policy on homosexuality is based on what values it wishes to
teach the Scouts. The values they want to teach reflect the
expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization
(traditonal family values is the term used the most). They do not
believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these
expectations. Therefore, they do not allow for the registration of
avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA. They are
rejecting the role model.
YiS,
Bill
--
And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
conviction in the minds of men that these
liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
In article <20000104183238...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
lean...@aol.com (Leanmc420) wrote:
> >Bill Nelson wrote:
> >
> >On 04 Jan 2000 11:56:22 GMT lean...@aol.com (Leanmc420) wrote:
> >> >whs wrote:
> >> >
> >...
> >>
> >> Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted
policies.
> >> Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders
the BSA
> >has
> >> made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't
manage to
> >> offend so many other people with their policies.
> >>
> >
> >The GSUSA, IMHO, has avoided the issue by not having a pro homosexual
> >policy. What they have amounts to a free admittance policy. If you
are
> >gay, you can be a member. period. That avoided their being attacked
> >by the gay community. No law suites, etc.
>
> Also the lesbian community . . . and the BSA could have a similar
policy that
> excluded people on the basis of avowing their being in a sexual
relationship
> outside of marriage rather than on sexual orientation. This policy
could apply
> to homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This would allow the BSA to
keep
> their moral stance.
>
> >Their policy on God is that
> >you can replace the word God with another spiritual word. Atheists
> >asked if they could replace God with something that does not
represent
> >anything beyond self, and were told it was OK. So they pretty much
> >eliminated a reason to have the word God in the oath.
>
> How does this differ from the current BSA policy of not defining God?
Isn't it
> possible for someone who believes that God doesn't represent anything
greater
> than one's self to be a member of the BSA?
>
> >I think the
> >question here is, do you stand for something, try to teach a moral
code
> >of conduct and that it is important to acknowledge something more
> >powerful than mankind, and bare the brunt of attacks from people who
> >don't agree with your stand, or do you simply not stand for anything
> >(at least in these areas) and not bare the brunt of attacks....what
> >does this teach the Scouts in your care? Obviously, a number of
> >things, both positive and negative....either way....
> >
>
> There are two problems with your portrayal of the BSA's stances on
these
> issues. The first is, the BSA doesn't teach that God is powerful than
mankind;
> they don't teach any definition of God at all. Or so you've told me.
The
> second problem is that their exclusion of homosexuals isn't based on
any
> individuals moral conduct at all. Its based on the BSA knowing they
are
> homosexual regardless of their actual conduct.
>
> This is why I think the BSA is being really dumb about these issues.
All the
> BSA teaches anyone who looks at these policies is that the BSA
national can't
> come up with good polices.
>
> >Yours in Scouting,
> >Bill
> >--
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Nelson
the BSA, trying to relfect the values of the family members and point to
all the writings on being morally straight for a defense...but we will
see what the Court thinks. You mentioned that it is of little
precidential value. Would you address the value of the case as
precidence for generally opening up the BSA in NJ to gays and atheists?
thanks
bill
In article <84ueaf$2jg0$2...@rs7.loc.gov>,
> : > Second, BSA didn't raise (in a timely way) the issue of whether
Dale
--
And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
conviction in the minds of men that these
liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
Aaron Kuperman
Atheists (and anarchists, and anti-environmentalists) are different issues
since BSA's policy is expressed very openly in the manual, scout law, etc.
In addition, public bodies are clearly prohibited under federal
constitutional law from inhibiting free speech and freedom of religion -
whereas any protection of "sexual freedoms" is derived from the
quasi-constitutional status of the right of privacy (i.e. making sexually
oriented jokes are not protected by the federal 1st amendment, advocating
equal rights and social acceptance of gay is protected). At most the
Supreme Court might address the question as to whether BSA is really
"private", but that's a federal issue not raised by the state law case.
In a post-Dale case nothing significant will be different. If Dale applies
to be leader, and a unit forwards the application, BSA could object on the
grounds that he is a well-known gay activist who will use his BSA
memebership for political advantage - which is a new legal issue. Nothing
would stop BSA from objecting to a leader who made his/her sexual
activities known to the boys (and arguably, discussing one's sex life with
a stranger is sexual harassment). Since BSA doesn't investigate who is
gay, the issue only arises if someone goes around volunteering information
about their sexual preferences (which is arguably per se inappropriate in
an organization serving children, even if one's preference is for
intramarital sex for the purpose of having children).
The only case that would resolve the question, and force a definitive BSA
policy, would be of someone who was preferably a parent of a scout, who
was undeniably gay (living with a same-sex roommate and telling anyone who
asked and had a reason to know that they had a de facto spousal
relationship), who was not a gay activist, who was a strict prude when
discussing sex (i.e. never discusses sex), and who was respectful of
traditional family structures. If BSA objected to the "Lesbian den mother"
described above, it would present a good case to resolve the issue. My
guess is that BSA is unlikely to object to a leader proposed by charter
organization UNLESS the leader is a political activitist or if the person
engages in sexually inappropriate behavior in a scouting context - which
pose a "free speech" or a "sexual harassment" issue rather than a "gay"
issue.
[posted on lunch time]
Bill Nelson (bnel...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Thanks for the reply. I think the BSA can point to the traditions of
: the BSA, trying to relfect the values of the family members and point to
: all the writings on being morally straight for a defense...but we will
: see what the Court thinks. You mentioned that it is of little
: precidential value. Would you address the value of the case as
: precidence for generally opening up the BSA in NJ to gays and atheists?
: thanks
: bill
k
Brian Westley
...
>In a post-Dale case nothing significant will be different.
I disagree entirely. If the Dale case is either not heard or
upheld by the supreme court, the Boy Scouts cannot violate the
LAD in NJ, which means they cannot exclude gays or atheists
in the state.
This would mean, for example, that atheists like the Randall twins
in CA could not be thrown out if they belonged to a NJ troop.
The NJ court has already pointed out that all the public
sponsors of troops, like public schools and fire departments,
have to follow the LAD, so even if the BSA wins, troops
chartered by these organizations still have to follow the LAD
and not discriminate, even if the BSA as an organization can.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Aaron Kuperman
opposed to the "duty to god...". They cited sources to support the
argument that "morally straight" is not historically a polite way of gay
bashing. If the New Jersey case stands, under New Jersey law BSA will have
to (in New Jersey) openly state (e.g. in the application form, in the boy
scout handbook, in the scoutmaster's handbook, etc.) the existence of an
anti-gay policy if it wants to exclude all gays. Being held to be a
"public" body in New Jersey means that BSA can only discriminate if such
discrimination relates to their core beliefs and activities (and BSA
couldn't prove that being anti-gay is part of their core beliefs and
activities). BSA would clearly be free to object to atheists,
anti-environmentalists, anarchists, those who don't like being cheerful,
etc. -- unless BSA were held to be a government agency (as opposed to
private non-statal organization serving the public).
Base on the facts determined by the courts in New Jersey, Dale could be
excluded for being a gay rights advocate (regardless of whether he is
gay). Anyone could be kicked out for any sexually inappropriate behavior
(and for an adult leader, virtually any sexually oriented behavior is
inappropriate).
Whether a state body would have the option of banning BSA would depend on
their policy towards non-governmental organizations in general - if they
don't ban BSA they would have to refrain from banning any private group.
If they allow private groups, they can't discriminate against BSA. This is
a whole different issue.
Brian Westley (wes...@visi.com) wrote:
Bill Nelson
Thank you for your insight.
Yours in Scouting,
Bill
Brian Westley
>No, New Jersey noted the absence of a scout oath "to be heterosexual" as
>opposed to the "duty to god...". They cited sources to support the
>argument that "morally straight" is not historically a polite way of gay
>bashing. If the New Jersey case stands, under New Jersey law BSA will have
>to (in New Jersey) openly state (e.g. in the application form, in the boy
>scout handbook, in the scoutmaster's handbook, etc.) the existence of an
>anti-gay policy if it wants to exclude all gays. Being held to be a
>"public" body in New Jersey means that BSA can only discriminate if such
>discrimination relates to their core beliefs and activities (and BSA
>couldn't prove that being anti-gay is part of their core beliefs and
>activities). BSA would clearly be free to object to atheists,
>anti-environmentalists, anarchists, those who don't like being cheerful,
>etc. -- unless BSA were held to be a government agency (as opposed to
>private non-statal organization serving the public).
Completely wrong. But you'll find out the hard way.
The NJ court says the BSA has to follow the LAD, and
that forbids religious as well as sexual orientation
discrimination.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Aaron Kuperman
By example, the "Gay men's chorus" could discriminate against people based
on sexual orientation (exclude non-gays), gender (exclude women), and
handicap (exclude those who can't sing). That is because the PRIVATE group
is allowed to define itself, and has a first amendment right of freedom
of association and a first amendment protection against "forced speech".
It could not exclude people based on race or religion, since those are not
part of the groups' positions.
In addition, since the "finding of fact" for the appeal is that Dale's
expulsion from BSA was NOT the result of him becoming a gay rights
advocate (even if that was the case), nor was it based on him engaging in
any sexually oriented behavior while scouting - but merely that he was gay
(not defined), the decision won't apply to cases of a gay rights advocate
(regardless of sexual orientation of a person) or someone who engages in a
form of sexually oriented behavior while acting as a scout leader (e.g.
when asked, lets people know that his/her roommate is a de facto spouse).
Brian Westley (wes...@visi.com) wrote:
: Completely wrong. But you'll find out the hard way.
Leanmc420
>A couple of points addressing your questions:
>
>No Boy Scout can change the phrase Duty to God to something else,
>Girl Scouts can.
Is a Scout required to believe that "God" refers to anything in particular, or
does it have no particular meaning?
>Also, every adult member of the BSA has to subscribe
>to the Declaration of Religious Principles, which is part of the BSA
>by-laws and is printed on the adult applications (in part) and fully in
>the Advancement Committee's handbook (I agree with those who say they
>should print the full DRP on the application or shorten the official one
>to what is on the application). Anyway, the full DRP defines God as the
>'leading and ruling power of the universe'. This is consistant with the
>WOSM definition of something greater than mankind. (see the recently
>posted rec.scouting.issues FAQ) From my experience in and outside of my
>troop, God is always portrayed to the Scouts as something greater than
>mankind.
>
So the BSA *do* give definitions that members must believe, but only give full
definitions in certain documents? What does the BSA do with religious persons
who believe in that definition of "God"?
>The BSA's policy on homosexuality is based on what values it wishes to
>teach the Scouts. The values they want to teach reflect the
>expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization
>(traditonal family values is the term used the most).
Which values are they, other than excluding homosexuals? I am an Eagle Scout,
and this subject of "traditional family values" never came up. The Honorary
President of the BSA, Bill Clinton, is a role model who signs every Eagle Scout
award. He is an known or avowed adulterer, sodomist, "misleader" and yet he
somehow represents traditional family values. That's a crazy double standard.
>They do not
>believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these
>expectations.
Yes, because apparently the BSA believes all homosexuals have homosexual sex.
The BSA doesn't exlcude unmarried Scouters because it doesn't approve of
premarital sex. That's an absurd belief, and extends a Courtesy to unmarried
Scouters that is denied to homosexuals.
>Therefore, they do not allow for the registration of
>avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA. They are
>rejecting the role model.
>
Rejecting all homosexuals without regard to their behavior or beliefs. This is
nothing but prejudice based on an ignorant stereotype. The BSA can and should
modify its policy to make it less absurd.
>YiS,
>Bill
>
>
>
>--
>And can the liberties of a nation be thought
>secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
>conviction in the minds of men that these
>liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
>
Brian Westley
>"hard way" - I haven't expressed a view on the substance of the issue.
>By example, the "Gay men's chorus" could discriminate against people based
>on sexual orientation (exclude non-gays), gender (exclude women), and
>handicap (exclude those who can't sing). That is because the PRIVATE group
>is allowed to define itself, and has a first amendment right of freedom
>of association and a first amendment protection against "forced speech".
The BSA isn't a private group, about 30% of the scout troops in NJ
were chartered by the state.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Aaron Kuperman
government make BSA into a quasi-governmental body, subject to an entirely
different legal regime than a private body (which may or may not be subject to
civil rights laws on public accommodation). It is really quite fascinating from
a legal perspective.
David Stephens
Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>
> And arguably the Federal charter and close historic relationships with the
> government make BSA into a quasi-governmental body, subject to an entirely
> different legal regime than a private body (which may or may not be subject to
> civil rights laws on public accommodation). It is really quite fascinating from
> a legal perspective.
If it is a government entity, how can it be a youth program in so many
churches? This would imply that the government is supporting specific
religions by allowing churches to host troops that could be assumed to
benefit those churches.
Of course Eagle projects would have to get approval from various
government agencies to see that they include sufficient efforts to help
targeted communities and must include an environmental impact statement.
We wouldn't want trees planted in former bison grazing grounds. Of
course follow-up reports must be properly filed. Some accounting must
also be made from a budgetary standpoint as to whether the efforts of
the government agent (Eagle candidate) should be deducted from
government grants or matching funds to local government
entities.........
David S.
Aaron Kuperman
"freedom of religion". An alternative theory would argue that all
religious bodies have a right to do anything that secular bodies can do
without being discriminated against because they are sectarian rather
than secular. It makes for a fertile ground for legal musings.--Aaron
[private note, posted on lunch time]
David Stephens wrote:
> If it is a government entity, how can it be a youth program in so many
> churches? This would imply that the government is supporting specific
> religions by allowing churches to host troops that could be assumed to
> benefit those churches [...]
whs
to your deformed opinion.
How does destroying the ability to deliver the message and program
serve youth?
Lately, I have found that those espousing your brand of belief would
like to destroy BSA.
Leanmc420 wrote:
>
> > whs wrote:
>
> >The GSUSA is certainly a wonderfully managed role model for the BSA.
> >Anyone seen a Senior Girl Scout Troop or Mariner Scout Ship in
> >action in the last decade or two!!! :-)
> >
> >YISS;
> >Bill Sills
> >
>
> The BSA's exclusion of homosexuals has nothing to do with its program, as its
> exclusion has nothing to do with actual sexual activity. I really don't care
> how well the GSUSA implements its program; so long as its policies are good and
> make sense they are a role model for the BSA. Because the BSA's position of
> homosexuals is goofy.
>
> The BSA could make a policy that stood up for traditional values of no sex
> outside of marriage, and hold homosexuals and heterosexuals to it equally.
> Individual troops could decide if individual leaders were fit for their troops,
> according to the values of their chartering organzation. Any leader who
> encouraged Scouts to experiment with sex would be thrown out, just as any
> leader who encouraged the use of drugs would be.
>
> In other words, the BSA should decide what kind of *behavior* is unacceptable,
> and not make prejudgements about individuals based solely on stereotypes of
> particular sexual orientations.
>
> >Leanmc420 wrote:
> >>
> >> >whs wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Some of us welcome the inevitable backlash that the public will inflict
> >> >upon those engaging in such dreary practices.
> >>
Leanmc420
>
>Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>>
>> And arguably the Federal charter and close historic relationships with the
>> government make BSA into a quasi-governmental body, subject to an entirely
>> different legal regime than a private body (which may or may not be subject
>to
>> civil rights laws on public accommodation). It is really quite fascinating
>from
>> a legal perspective.
>
>churches? This would imply that the government is supporting specific
>religions by allowing churches to host troops that could be assumed to
Not at all, churches can benifit from government bodies just as other
non-profits can. Churches get police and fire protection, use money coined by
the mint, adopt highways, go to national parks, partipate in softball leagues,
buy power from municipal power companies, use city water and sewage, get their
trash picked up, the list goes on and on. If the government only offered that
support to specific religions, that would be unconstitutional, or if those
religions used federal funds to promote their religious views, that would be
unconstitutional.
But with the exception of the BSA's reluctance to charter troops to certain
religous denominations (ie COG), this isn't how the BSA works. The BSA offers
a program to chartering partners, and the chartering partner provides the
support and funding to run the program. For this privilage, members of the
chartering partner's troop pay the BSA dues. I believe there is a chartering
fee that the organization must pay, as well.
Program materials must be purchased, either directly or through dues. When
members attend events sponsored by the BSA, they generally pay their own way
out of pocket or through fundraisers. Its the chartering partners and the
members of their troops that financially support the BSA, not the other way
around.
whs
three "non married couples" have their registration "pulled" for
extra marital sexual relations.
Morally straight is easily defined by those who observe it.
Therefore, it would naturally be a difficult concept for attorneys
and homosexuals to grasp.
YISS; Bill Sills
Leanmc420
>
>Obviously, you don't care about effectiveness, just about conformity
>to your deformed opinion.
>
What about my opinion that individuals should be judged according to their
actual actions and behavior rather than stereotypes is deformed? The BSA
teaches that a Scout is Courteous, prejudging individuals based on a stereotype
is in no way Courteous. Nor is it Mentally Awake.
>How does destroying the ability to deliver the message and program
>serve youth?
>
How does excluding people based *solely* on their sexual orientation rather
than sexual activity communicate the message that the BSA is opposed to
homosexual sex as opposed to homosexuals? How does a message that all
homosexuals have sex serve youth? What kind of message is it that
hetereosexual sodomy and adultry by the BSA's honorary president is ok but
celebite homosexuals aren't ok? That is the message the BSA is sending, and it
is a bad message.
>Lately, I have found that those espousing your brand of belief would
>like to destroy BSA.
>
Same here. According to the Scoutmaster's Handbook, nothing is more
destructive to Scouts than adult hypocricy and double standards. Those
espousing your beliefs (that the BSA's anti-homosexual policy as it is written
is good) are supporting hypocricy and double-standards. Your beliefs are the
ones that will destroy the BSA, not mine.
I am all for a policy that would hold all Scouters to the *same* high standards
of monogomy and fidelity to marriage vows without regard to sexual orientation.
I don't understand how such a stance is destructive to the mission of the BSA.
Leanmc420
>
>During my 50+ years in the BSA, I have seen two professionals and
>three "non married couples" have their registration "pulled" for
>extra marital sexual relations.
>
By whom were their registrations pulled? By the chartering partner? By the
district? Is there a national policy to pull registration of such people?
National policy is that registration must be "pulled" of any "known" homosexul,
and if the responsible people will not do this the BSA will fire them and
replace them with someone who would.
Does the BSA pull registration of unmarried Scouters because it is opposed to
extramarital sex? No. There are thousands of unmarried Scouters. But if the
BSA treated unmarried Scouters the same way it treats homosexuals, the BSA
would assume that unmarried people are all sexually active and therefore
promote extramarital sex.
>Morally straight is easily defined by those who observe it.
>Therefore, it would naturally be a difficult concept for attorneys
>and homosexuals to grasp.
>
I am neither an attorney nor a homosexual. I am, however, an Eagle Scout, and
Morally straight is easily defined by me as well. My religious tradition
(PCUSA) teaches that homosexuals can refrain from forbidden sex just as can
heterosexuals. Therefore, I see no contradiction between someone being both
homosexual and Morally straight.
Are you Mentally awake when you say that homosexuals are immoral simply because
of their sexual orientation? If you don't mind me asking, what Church are you
a member of that teaches such a belief?
>YISS; Bill Sills
Christopher J. Watson
>
> > whs wrote:
> >
> >Obviously, you don't care about effectiveness, just about conformity
> >to your deformed opinion.
> >
>
> What about my opinion that individuals should be judged according to their
> actual actions and behavior rather than stereotypes is deformed?
People are being judged according to their own behaviors and actions
according to the policy as it stands.
He just don't like the equal judgment being made because as an admitted
behavioral activist he wants to promote homosexuality.
<snip>
> >How does destroying the ability to deliver the message and program
> >serve youth?
> >
>
> How does excluding people based *solely* on their sexual [dis]orientation
He keeps telling this lie, perhaps he thinks it's effective, who knows.
He doesn't sound very "mentally awake", in any case.
It's about the avowance of homosexaulity according to the policy. A
judgment is made about that, and that's what Leanmc really, really,
doesn't like.
Too bad.
Avowance of homosexuality and acting out homosexual behaviors is
destructive to one's self and to others.
<snipo>Leanmc drivel.
Besides the fact is that there isn't some sort of objective definition
of a "sexual orientation".
--W
--
"If the American blood products industry
had accepted the conclusions of CDC
experts showing that HIV was a bloodborne
disease, tens or hundreds of thousands of
Americans who are now dead might be alive.
Instead, for almost two years-hammered
on the one side by gay activists arguing that
screening would be discrimi-natory and on
the other by concern for profit margins-the
Red Cross and other institutions resisted
pleas to institute donor screening, killing
thousands of transfusion recipients and
nearly every American hemophiliac who
received even a single dose of clotting
factor between 1980 and 1985."
(Homosexuality and American Public
Life, Edited by Chrisopher Wolfe,
(Dallas: Spence Publishing Company)
1999, :122)
"Each new homosexual generation is being replenished
by heterosexuals whose productionof gay sons is entirely
unrelated to the dynamics of the epidemic. AIDS, therefore,
can keep mowing down gay men and rather than die out,
phalanx after phalanx will emerge from the trenches, ready to be
mowed down anew. The epidemic could literally go on forever."
(Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, Gabrielle Rotello)
Christopher J. Watson
>
> >whs wrote:
<snip>
>
> Does the BSA pull registration of unmarried Scouters because it is opposed to
> extramarital sex? No. There are thousands of unmarried Scouters. But if the
> BSA treated unmarried Scouters the same way it treats homosexuals,
Fallacy.
Every unmarried Scouter is being treated in the same fashion.
> Are you Mentally awake when you say that homosexuals are immoral simply because
> of their sexual orientation?
Alls people have to have is a conscience and a little knowledge to see
that avowing homosexuality is undesirable.
<snip>Church talk.
There is no objective definition of so called "sexual orientation".
It's rather specious to expect churches to have some rational and
unified policies about something which isn't even defined.
On the other hand the BSA's policy *does* objectively and clearly define
exactly what it is talking about.
The avowance of homosexuality and acting out and being known by
homosexuality.
Those two things are clearly destructive to youth. Leanmc is apparently
the type of person who doesn't care about the youth, though.
The First Geer family
news:3874C294...@flash.net...
> Aaron Kuperman wrote:
> >
> > And arguably the Federal charter and close historic relationships with
the
> > government make BSA into a quasi-governmental body, subject to an
entirely
> > different legal regime than a private body (which may or may not be
subject to
> > civil rights laws on public accommodation). It is really quite
fascinating from
> > a legal perspective.
>
> If it is a government entity, how can it be a youth program in so many
> churches? This would imply that the government is supporting specific
> religions by allowing churches to host troops that could be assumed to
> benefit those churches.
Simple, look at the US Military. Throughout its existance, the military has
provide churches BUILT by government money, provide FREE, heat, power,
water, bibles, printing, mail service. CREATED and SUPPORT both youth groups
as well as adult services. Furthermore, not all religions get this provided.
So, I guess the military does practice religious discrimination.
The First Geer family
news:20000106153037...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> >whs wrote:
> >
> >During my 50+ years in the BSA, I have seen two professionals and
> >three "non married couples" have their registration "pulled" for
> >extra marital sexual relations.
> >
>
> By whom were their registrations pulled? By the chartering partner? By
the
> district? Is there a national policy to pull registration of such people?
> National policy is that registration must be "pulled" of any "known"
homosexul,
> and if the responsible people will not do this the BSA will fire them and
> replace them with someone who would
I can't answer for whs. But, in my council 4 years ago I know of one
assistant scout master as well as the council camp ranger had their BSA
membership pulled after being caught by an adult leader and a district
executive in the act of sex during a scouting function. The camp ranger was
fired for cause.
Leanmc420
And I would agree that *anyone* who had sexual relations on a Scouting event
could be rightly dismissed, especially if it was a case of someone having sex
on the job. The difference in these examples is that the BSA excludes
homosexuals regardless of any sexual activity.
I have no problem with the BSA expelling someone who had sex on a BSA
function. I have no problem with the BSA expelling someone who avowed
extramarital affairs. I've got a big problem with the BSA excluding people
because of stereotypes. I've got a big problem if the BSA national leaves it
up to the discression of local authorities on how to discipline heterosexuals
who have sex outside of marriage, but leaves no choice but to expell any known
homosexual even if there is no evidence that they are sexually active.
The Scoutmaster's Handbook says that double standards and adult hypocricy are
the most destructive influences on youth. The BSA should have one rule for
sexual behavior and it shouldn't depend on sexual orientation.
Aaron Kuperman
the hearts of men, the de facto policy ends up being that anyone whose
sexual behavior becomes known (other than a married heterosexual whose
behavior can be implied from the marriage) is liable to raise objections.
This suggests that BSA's de facto policy is that one should keep one's sex
life private, which seems reasonable (especially in a group dealing with
other people's children). In the Dale case, inspite of what the lawyers
did to the findings of fact, the triggering event seems to have been when
Mr. Dale became known as a gay activist, and this became known to a BSA
executive.
It would be interesting to hear of any cases of a celibate non-activist
homosexual being objected to (e.g. a clergyman in a religion whose clergy
is celibate regardless of orientation), or of a unmarried parent being
objected to if they volunteer to help lead their son's unit. Assuming the
people in question were respectably prudish about sex, I doubt they would
raise objections.
[posted from home,not on company time]
Someone wrote:
: And I would agree that *anyone* who had sexual relations on a Scouting event
Leanmc420
>
>But assuming that BSA lacks managers who read minds and know what is in
>the hearts of men, the de facto policy ends up being that anyone whose
>sexual behavior becomes known (other than a married heterosexual whose
>behavior can be implied from the marriage) is liable to raise objections.
>This suggests that BSA's de facto policy is that one should keep one's sex
>life private, which seems reasonable (especially in a group dealing with
>other people's children).
Knowing someone's sexual orientation is not the same as knowing someone's sex
life. One need not have sex in order to have their sexual orientation known.
I agree that Scouters should keep their sex lives private, but the BSA doesn't
exclude avowed heterosexuals and presumably they give just as much details into
their sex lives as do homosexuals, ie prefered gender and nothing more.
>In the Dale case, inspite of what the lawyers
>did to the findings of fact, the triggering event seems to have been when
>Mr. Dale became known as a gay activist, and this became known to a BSA
>executive.
>
What was the nature of Mr. Dale's activism? There can be very many kinds of
activism. For example, the BSA's largest religous sponsor the UMC teaches that
homosexuals should be garunteed equal civil rights as heterosexuals. Is
working to achieve an ideal of the BSA's largest religous sponsor the same as
being a gay activist? It would seem like the only kind of gay activism that
goes against the stated beliefs of the BSA would be someone whose activism
promoted the belief that homosexual sex was not wrong. Unless the BSA is
opposed to the tolerance of homosexuals as people, not merely opposing
homosexual sex.
>It would be interesting to hear of any cases of a celibate non-activist
>homosexual being objected to (e.g. a clergyman in a religion whose clergy
>is celibate regardless of orientation), or of a unmarried parent being
>objected to if they volunteer to help lead their son's unit.
Craig Jerrnigen, a divorced parent and gay Rabbi from Durham NC, was denied
membership in the late 80's as a volunteer Scouter. Jerrnigan is an Eagle Scout
and wanted to volunteer in his son's troop.
>Assuming the
>people in question were respectably prudish about sex, I doubt they would
>raise objections.
>
They did, Jerrnigan could not become a Scouter.
Brian Westley
>But assuming that BSA lacks managers who read minds and know what is in
>the hearts of men, the de facto policy ends up being that anyone whose
>sexual behavior becomes known (other than a married heterosexual whose
>behavior can be implied from the marriage) is liable to raise objections.
>This suggests that BSA's de facto policy is that one should keep one's sex
>life private, which seems reasonable (especially in a group dealing with
>did to the findings of fact, the triggering event seems to have been when
>Mr. Dale became known as a gay activist, and this became known to a BSA
>executive.
Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Ulftonn
>the
>> > government make BSA into a quasi-governmental body, subject to an
>entirely
>> > different legal regime than a private body (which may or may not be
>subject to
>> > civil rights laws on public accommodation). It is really quite
>fascinating from
>> > a legal perspective.
>>
>> If it is a government entity, how can it be a youth program in so many
>> churches? This would imply that the government is supporting specific
>> religions by allowing churches to host troops that could be assumed to
>> benefit those churches.
>
>Simple, look at the US Military. Throughout its existance, the military has
>provide churches BUILT by government money, provide FREE, heat, power,
>water, bibles,
As well as other religious books :)
printing, mail service. CREATED and SUPPORT both youth groups
>as well as adult services. Furthermore, not all religions get this provided.
Really could you name a few that dont? As a hint read the Army Chaplains
Pamphlet 600-75 accomodateing religious practices, DOD derective 1300.17 on
accomodateing religious practices.
From DOD deredtive 1300.17
"A. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Directive reissues reference (a) and, pursuant to references (b) and (c),
prescribes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the accommodation of
religious practices in the Military Services.
C. POLICY
A basic principle of our nation is free exercise of religion. The Department of
Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to
observe the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy that
requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by
commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on military
readiness, unit cohesion, standards or discipline.
The following goals are to be used by the Military Departments in the
development of guidance on the exercise of command discretion concerning the
accommodation of religious practices. Nothing in these goals or in the
implementing rules of the Military Departments (except when expressly provided
therein) shall be interpreted as requiring a specific form of accommodation in
individual circumstances. a. Worship services, holy days, and Sabbath
observance should be accommodated, except when precluded by military necessity.
b. The Military Departments should include religious belief as one factor for
consideration when granting separate rations, and permit commanders to
authorize individuals to provide their own supplemental food rations in a field
or "at sea" environment to accommodate their religious beliefs.
c. The Military Departments should consider religious beliefs as a factor for
waiver of immunizations, subject to medical risks to the unit and military
requirements, such as alert status and deployment potential.
d. The Military Departments should include relevant materials on religious
traditions, practices, and policies in the curricula for command, judge
advocate, chaplain, and similar courses and orientations.
e. The Military Departments should develop a statement advising of DoD policy
on individual religious practices and military requirements to applicants for
commissioning, enlistment, and reenlistment.
f. Religious items or articles not visible or otherwise apparent may be worn
with the uniform, provided they shall not interfere with the performance of the
member's military duties, as discussed in subparagraph C.2.g.(5), below, or
interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform.
g. Under Public Law 100-180, section 508 (reference (c)), members of the Armed
Forces may wear visible items of religious apparel while in uniform, except
under circumstances in which an item is not neat and conservative or its
wearing shall interfere with the performance of the member's military duties.
Under this Directive, "religious apparel" is defined as articles of clothing
worn as part of the doctrinal or traditional observance of the religious faith
practiced by the member. Hair and grooming practices required or observed by
religious groups are not included within the meaning of religious apparel.
Jewelry bearing religious inscriptions or otherwise indicating religious
affiliation or belief is subject to existing Service uniform regulations just
as jewelry that is not of a religious nature.
In the context of the wearing of a military uniform, "neat and conservative"
items of religious apparel are those that: (a) Are discreet, tidy, and not
dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color.
(b) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized
article of the uniform.
(c) Are not temporarily or permanently affixed or appended to any authorized
article of the uniform.
The standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, are intended to serve as a
basis for determining a member's entitlement under Public Law 100- 180, section
508 (reference (c)), to wear religious apparel with the uniform. For example,
unless prohibited by subparagraph C.2.g.(6), below, a Jewish yarmulke may be
worn with the uniform whenever a military cap, hat, or other headgear is not
prescribed. A yarmulke may also be worn underneath military headgear as long as
it does not interfere with the proper wearing, functioning, or appearance of
the prescribed headgear.
Exceptions to the standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, and other special
accommodations for members of particular religious groups may be granted by the
Military Departments under section D., below.
Whether an item of religious apparel interferes with the performance of the
member's military duties depends on the characteristics of the item, the
circumstances of its intended wear, and the particular nature of the member's
duties. Factors in determining if an item of religious apparel interferes with
military duties include, but are not limited to, whether the item may: (a)
Impair the safe and effective operation of weapons, military equipment, or
machinery.
(b) Pose a health or safety hazard to the wearer or others.
(c) Interfere with the wearing or proper functioning of special or protective
clothing or equipment (e.g., helmets, flack jackets, flight suits, camouflaged
uniforms, gas masks, wet suits, and crash and rescue equipment).
(d) Otherwise impair the accomplishment of the military mission.
A complete prohibition on the wearing of any visible items of religious apparel
may be appropriate under unique circumstances in which the member's duties, the
military mission, or the maintenance of discipline require absolute uniformity.
For example, members may be prohibited from wearing visible religious apparel
while wearing historical or ceremonial uniforms; participating in review
formations, parades, honor or color guards, and similar ceremonial details and
functions.
The authority to approve the wearing of an item of religious apparel with the
uniform, under the guidelines of this paragraph, shall be exercised at the
command level specified by each Military Department. Denials of requests to
wear religious apparel shall be subject to review at the Service Headquarters
level. Final review shall occur within 30 days following the date of initial
denial for cases arising in the United States, and within 60 days for all other
cases. Exceptions to these deadlines shall be limited to exigent circumstances,
such as extended deployment. Service members shall be obliged to comply with
orders prohibiting the wearing of questionable items of religious apparel
pending review of such orders under regulations issued by the Secretaries of
the Military Departments.
h. Notwithstanding paragraphs C.2.f. and g., above, chaplains may wear any
required religious apparel or accouterments with the uniform while conducting
worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to
their faith groups. "
or best yet check out
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/CHAP/relpractice/index.htm
now your point was? Of all the groups the military takes its freedoms the most
seriously, something to do with putting you life up for those freedoms does
that.
Ulftonn
The First Geer family
news:20000107202714...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
(snipped out the DOD directive about religion and religious appearal)
> now your point was? Of all the groups the military takes its freedoms the
most
> seriously, something to do with putting you life up for those freedoms
does
> that.
The point is that religions receive both MONEY and any and all support
allowed by units' missions. And that by the letter of the law is giving
support to religions. Whether it is 1 or 100, it is still supporting
religion. I'd like to see a town or even a higher level of government to
build and support 1 or more churches. I bet ACLU will be screaming an
knocking on their doors, crying Violation of the constitution.
Eddie
Henk Stokhorst
> Individual troops could decide if individual leaders were fit for their troops,
> according to the values of their chartering organzation.
The chartering organizations are pretty much the problem. A number of them chooses
to 'support' Scouting to neutralize the movement and the ideas it teaches to the
youth. The boyscouts in the USA should strive to become an independant
organization, which would require a grassroots movement among its members.
I happen to live in a country where approx. 10 people out of 125.000 scouts care
about the 3 G's and at least 6 of them primarily in relation to the BSA rather than
their own Scouting organization. How come? We don't have chartering organizations
that strive to impose their ideology on youth through Scouting. That allows us to
center on Scouting as a method for development of the youth, exactly as it was
intended, adopted and maintained throughout history.
YiS;
see http://home.wxs.nl/~tha/scouting/methodieken/Scouting_in_The_Netherlands.html
for background information.
Leanmc420
>BSA's lawyers argued that, but the court couldn't find this anti-gay
>policy in the published literature, and therefore held that being anti-gay
>is NOT a core belief of BSA, therefore their 1st amendment rights weren't
>violated (whereas apparently they would be if they were required to accept
>an atheist, anarchist or anti-environmentalist as a leader).
Sorry to dredge this up, but something about this statement bothered me and its
taken me a while to form my objection.
The BSA doesn't require that its adult members not be atheists, the BSA
requires that they subscribe to the DRP. Apparently, despite past actions, the
BSA will now accept atheists that will follow the DRP. Its not a very clear
policy, and I'm not sure I fully understand how it is applied to youth and
adults.
The BSA doesn't exclude anarchism, but rather teaches that Scouts follow the
laws of the land. If you disagree with the laws of the land, the BSA counsels
that one should follow the laws and work to have them changed. An anarchist
does not necessarily believe that laws should be broken, just that there should
be no government (and presumably no civil laws). *Some* kinds of anarchism
might be objectible to the BSA, but not a blanket ban on anarchists.
Anti-enviornmentalism, it seems to me that the BSA is only against littering
and destruction of other people's property. Are people who object to the
Endangered Species Act or the Envoirnmental Protection Agency
"anti-envoirmentalists"? If one opposes envorimentalists such as Greenpeace,
does that make one an anti-envornmentalist? Emission standards for
automobiles, clean water standards, regulations for industry, saving the
spotted owl, can people who are opponents of these iniatives be Scouters? I
would think so. Certainly, "anti-envornmentalism" wouldn't be defined by a
standard of the most radical left-wing envornementalists in the USA.
>Objecting to
>someone being "gay" is dumb since a person can be "gay" even though they
>have a conventional lifestyle and oppose gay rights. But while BSA painted
>itself into a corner in the Dale case, that means the case is of little
>precedential value
Right, I agree with the statement that one may be gay and have a conventional
lifestyle and oppose gay rights (if this isn't true, then Dr. Laura is
misleading us about all her gay listeners!). I think that unless the BSA's
policy is against homosexual persons rather than homosexual sex, then the BSA
should change their policy to make it more accurate and clear. If the BSA's
policy is really opposed to homosexuals as persons, then they need to clearly
state this so that their religous sponsors, most of which teach that
homosexuals ought to be accepted as people, can decide whether the BSA is moral
or not.
<snip>
The First Geer family
> Which values are they, other than excluding homosexuals? I am an Eagle
Scout,
> and this subject of "traditional family values" never came up. The
Honorary
> President of the BSA, Bill Clinton, is a role model who signs every Eagle
Scout
> award. He is an known or avowed adulterer, sodomist, "misleader" and yet
he
> somehow represents traditional family values. That's a crazy double
standard.
Remember he is only the HONORY president. It is no more than a figure head.
As far as being a "avowed adulterer, sodomist, "misleader" is not viewed by
many Americans. Remember the news when that issue was going on?
Sure President Clinton sings each one. That is if you ignore the fact that
it is a facsimaley of his signature. The president signature appearrs on
many differrant cards, certificates, etc. But they are not real.
The First Geer family
> The GSUSA is certainly a wonderfully managed role model for the BSA.
> Anyone seen a Senior Girl Scout Troop or Mariner Scout Ship in
> action in the last decade or two!!! :-)
Yes, I have. In fact my oldest daughter and one of my nieces are in a senior
girl scout troop.
The First Geer family
> Others would simply prefer the BSA have less stupid, bigoted policies.
> Scouting is a wonderful institution despite many of the blunders the BSA
has
> made. Other Scouting organizations, including the GSUSA, don't manage to
> offend so many other people with their policies.
>
for male dominated groups or programs to go after. Example, look at the old
YMCA. It is now includes both sexes. Why, because it was a "ONLY FOR MEN."
Did those same groups who went after them go after the YWCA to force them to
allow men to join? Nope.
The First Geer family
> The BSA's exclusion of homosexuals has nothing to do with its program, as
its
> exclusion has nothing to do with actual sexual activity. I really don't
care
> how well the GSUSA implements its program; so long as its policies are
good and
> make sense they are a role model for the BSA. Because the BSA's position
of
> homosexuals is goofy.
Sure I can see it now if BSA adapts the various programs/policies that GSUSA
have. Sure you would see homosexuals and een athiests. However, all girls
(youth) would have to be expelled from Venture and other programs that they
are now allowed to be members. But then you'd have people then going after
BSA for not allowing girls into their programs. Damn it you do damn if you
don't
>
The First Geer family
> I am all for a policy that would hold all Scouters to the *same* high
standards
> of monogomy and fidelity to marriage vows without regard to sexual
orientation.
> I don't understand how such a stance is destructive to the mission of the
BSA.
But, if you look at society today, it is more accepted to affairs than it
was years past. IMO, I'd say that in 20-30 years, it will start being
contested in courts that laws prohibiting adultery etc, is a violation of
ones right to privacy.
FL PBPress
>allowed by units' missions. And that by the letter of the law is giving
>support to religions. Whether it is 1 or 100, it is still supporting
>religion. I'd like to see a town or even a higher level of government to
>build and support 1 or more churches. I bet ACLU will be screaming an
>knocking on their doors, crying Violation of the constitution.
>
>Eddie
Eddie:
First, military chapels are open to all religions. A Catholic service may
follow or preceed a Protestant service in the same building. A Jewish service
may also have been held in the same building the previous day, and an Islamic
service, two days earlier.
Yes, the military has budgets for the building of houses of worship.
Sometimes, there will be Protestant and Catholic chapels on a base, but the
budget for the construction of them is identical, or so close, as to make any
difference negligible. Most large military installations also have a Jewish
chapel.
The number of military personnel that belong to other religions is
probably less than 10%, which is why the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish
chapels do double duty as houses of worship for the other religions.
None of the armed forces dictates which religious service its members
shall attend. If a service member practices a religion other than Christianity
or Judiaism, they are normally allowed to take their religious holidays off,
with pay. The military services make every effort to accommodate the religious
beliefs of their members, and to provide adequate places of worship for them.
If the ACLU had a bone to pick about the military building houses of
worship, they'd have done it a long time ago.
Second, freedom of religion means just that. It was put into the
Constitution to prevent the government from establishing a national religion,
such as the English monarchy had done, in establishing the Church of England.
Third, freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion. There is
a difference.
Ken
Bill Bekkenhuis
<hUWd4.296$B5....@news.more.net>...
<Bill Bekk's summary: Leanmc420 points out that the honorary president of the
BSA is a "known or avowed" adulterer.>
> Remember he is only the HONORY president. It is no more than a figure head.
> As far as being a "avowed adulterer, sodomist, "misleader" is not viewed by
> many Americans. Remember the news when that issue was going on?
Matters not.
According to Mr. Nelson, the BSA does not accept "known or avowed" homosexuals
(orientation) because - whether they are sexually active or not - that would
endorse some sort of ill-defined "homosexual behavior".
Here you have someone who IS a "known or avowed" adulterer (behavior) and they
have not said ONE WORD of disapproval.
So I guess they endorse adultery.
> Sure President Clinton sings each one. That is if you ignore the fact that
> it is a facsimaley of his signature. The president signature appearrs on
> many differrant cards, certificates, etc. But they are not real.
It's bad enough that he signs each one, I sure hope he doesn't sing them as
well :-)
Your argument that his signature is a facsimile is disingenuous and the fact
that it is the best counter-argument you can come up with shows that you
yourself realize what an embarrassment the BSA's silence on Mr. Clinton is to
the pro-BSA policy people.
You let me know when the BSA distributes awards with the facsimile of a known
or avowed homosexual's signature and I'll take that argument seriously.
--
Regards,
Bill Bekkenhuis <bekke...@fast.net>
<http://www.users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/>
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Mohandas Gandhi
Leanmc420
>Message-id: <j1Xd4.299$B5....@news.more.net>
I've never heard of anyone being charged with criminal adultery, now, outside
of those in the Military which has its own law and whose members voluntary
circumscribe certain of their rights while in the service.
Moreover, adultery is considered immoral by nearly every religous body in the
USA, and by most non-religous people as well. Simply being a homosexual is not
considered immoral by nearly every religous body. The BSA's policy does not
discriminate between sexually active and sexually abstinate homosexuals, it
excludes all homosexuals without regard to sexual activity.
If the BSA is to reflect the values of America, it must adjust its policies to
reflect the moral consensus that even Jerry Fallwell seems to subscribe to:
its wrong to condemn homosexuals without regard to their sexual activity.
Leanmc420
>Message-id: <hZWd4.298$B5....@news.more.net>
>> The BSA's exclusion of homosexuals has nothing to do with its program, as
>its
>> exclusion has nothing to do with actual sexual activity. I really don't
>care
>> how well the GSUSA implements its program; so long as its policies are
>good and
>> make sense they are a role model for the BSA. Because the BSA's position
>of
>> homosexuals is goofy.
>
>Sure I can see it now if BSA adapts the various programs/policies that GSUSA
>have.
I'm not suggesting that GSUSA is superior in every aspect to the BSA. The
BSA's policy on homosexuals doesn't make sense, and their policy on religon is
unclear, also. The BSA has a hard time implementing the policy on homosexuals,
and persons responsible for implemneting it have made errors, such as the youth
in RI who was interrogated about his sexuality by a BSA camp director and
fired, only for the BSA national to do an about face. The BSA needs to change
its policy no matter what, I was merely pointing out that the GSUSA has a
better, more reasonable policy on this matter than the BSA.
>Sure you would see homosexuals and een athiests. However, all girls
>(youth) would have to be expelled from Venture and other programs that they
>are now allowed to be members.
Girls aren't members of the BSA now, they are merely participants in Venturing
and other Scout programs for older BSA youth members. I never suggested that
the BSA change all of its policies to be in conformance with the GSUSA. The
BSA needs new polices on homosexuals and religon so that the policies are clear
and reasonable. They could model their new policies after those of the GSUSA,
or any other Scouting association around the world. I suggested the GSUSA, but
they could base their policies on those of the Scout Association of the UK, or
Canadian Scouts, both of which allow homosexuals to be adult leaders.
>But then you'd have people then going after
>BSA for not allowing girls into their programs. Damn it you do damn if you
>don't
I think the BSA ought to allow troops *the option* of having female youth
members, but just because it could make the program stronger. The BSA needs a
new policy on homosexuals because their current one makes no sense, is hard for
the BSA to implement, and is the basis of many lawsuits.
whs
> Girls aren't members of the BSA now, they are merely participants
in Venturing and other Scout programs for older BSA youth members.
The facts are the following:
Girls have been fully registered members of Sea Scouts since 1957.
They have been fully registered members of Exploring since 1971.
The outdoors and religious Exploring programs are now Venturing.
The Commodore of the Sea Scout Fleet, BSA (National Commodore) is
Mrs. Jimmie Homburg. The Chief Boatswain (top youth) of the
Northeast Region Sea Scout Flotilla is a young lady. Our highest
rank is QUARTERMASTER. That is split about even between young women
and young men.
Sea Scouts has officially encouraged co-ed participation since 1922.
As mentioned above, we have been a completely co-ed program for 43
years!!!
Yours In Sea Scouts;
Bill Sills
Aide to the National Commodore
whs
I operate the Mariner Scout page so I know a few of them still exist.
The above does little to harm the value of my statement!!! :-)
YISS;
Bill Sills
The First Geer family wrote:
>
Ulftonn
>most
>> seriously, something to do with putting you life up for those freedoms
>does
>> that.
>
>allowed by units' missions. And that by the letter of the law is giving
>support to religions. Whether it is 1 or 100, it is still supporting
>religion. I'd like to see a town or even a higher level of government to
>build and support 1 or more churches. I bet ACLU will be screaming an
>knocking on their doors, crying Violation of the constitution.
>
>Eddie
>
Two points you might have missed the Churchs on military bases are open to use
by all religions, and non-religious groups as well. If a Athiest support group
wants to use a chaple they get to use a chaple. If a city government wished to
build a building open to all religions, and non-religious uses as well they
could and can.
Ulftonn
Aaron Kuperman
Which makes the Dale case irrelevant since the "finding of fact" is so out
of line and so narrow compared to the reality. Arguably, BSA could object
to someone who "was" morally straight but advocated tolerance for those
who weren't - but that won't be addressed [to back up my point, imagine
that issue was someone was was patriotic and pro-environmental but
advocated tolerance for the disloyal and the anti-environment).--[posted
form home, not on company time]
: >did to the findings of fact, the triggering event seems to have been when
Brian Westley
>: >did to the findings of fact, the triggering event seems to have been when
>: >Mr. Dale became known as a gay activist, and this became known to a BSA
>: >executive.
>: Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
>Which makes the Dale case irrelevant since the "finding of fact" is so out
>of line and so narrow compared to the reality.
It's your comprehension that's out of line with reality.
The Dale case, assuming no changes from the US supreme court,
states, flatly, that the BSA is subject to the LAD in New Jersey.
The BSA will be breaking the law if they discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation or religion under this ruling.
>Arguably, BSA could object
>to someone who "was" morally straight but advocated tolerance for those
>who weren't - but that won't be addressed [to back up my point, imagine
>that issue was someone was was patriotic and pro-environmental but
>advocated tolerance for the disloyal and the anti-environment).
Not even comparable. Dale didn't advocate anything in the Scouts.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
The First Geer family
news:01bf5ab0$01ee4680$8a125cd1@billbekk...
> The First Geer family <emg...@train.missouri.org> wrote in article
> <hUWd4.296$B5....@news.more.net>...
>
> <Bill Bekk's summary: Leanmc420 points out that the honorary president of
the
> BSA is a "known or avowed" adulterer.>
<snip>
>
> Here you have someone who IS a "known or avowed" adulterer (behavior) and
they
> have not said ONE WORD of disapproval.
>
I agree with you, Clinton is guilty as sin. However, no court ever found him
guilty of being an adulterer. So, your comparison is somewhat mute.
> > Sure President Clinton sings each one. That is if you ignore the fact
that
> > it is a facsimaley of his signature. The president signature appearrs on
> > many differrant cards, certificates, etc. But they are not real.
>
> It's bad enough that he signs each one, I sure hope he doesn't sing them
as
> well :-)
Good shot. You got me, Bill! :-}
>
> Your argument that his signature is a facsimile is disingenuous and the
fact
> that it is the best counter-argument you can come up with shows that you
> yourself realize what an embarrassment the BSA's silence on Mr. Clinton is
to
> the pro-BSA policy people.
I wasn't trying to make a counter-argument. I was trying to make a small
correction.
The First Geer family
GSUSA
> >have.
>
> I'm not suggesting that GSUSA is superior in every aspect to the BSA. The
> BSA's policy on homosexuals doesn't make sense, and their policy on
religon is
> unclear, also. The BSA has a hard time implementing the policy on
homosexuals,
> and persons responsible for implemneting it have made errors, such as the
youth
> in RI who was interrogated about his sexuality by a BSA camp director and
> fired, only for the BSA national to do an about face. The BSA needs to
change
> its policy no matter what, I was merely pointing out that the GSUSA has a
> better, more reasonable policy on this matter than the BSA.
Sure, GSUSA has a more liberal policy towards homosexuals, as you pointed
out before and in this post. However, in the portion that was snipped out by
you; I asked if the GSUSA policy that discriminates against boys as well as
adult males is or should be overlooked? To imply that BSA should adapt only
a portion of their policy yet ignore the other issues such as sex
discrimination does not help your cause.
>
> >Sure you would see homosexuals and een athiests. However, all girls
> >(youth) would have to be expelled from Venture and other programs that
they
> >are now allowed to be members.
>
> Girls aren't members of the BSA now, they are merely participants in
Venturing
> and other Scout programs for older BSA youth members.
Sure now they are not. But, for many years they were part of BSA until those
programs were moved out of the actual program. However, they still fill out
a BSA application and are registered under the BSA umbrella.
<snip>
>
> >But then you'd have people then going after
> >BSA for not allowing girls into their programs. Damn it you do damn if
you
> >don't
>
> I think the BSA ought to allow troops *the option* of having female youth
> members, but just because it could make the program stronger. The BSA
needs a
> new policy on homosexuals because their current one makes no sense, is
hard for
> the BSA to implement, and is the basis of many lawsuits.
Funny, how you use GSUSA's so call open enrollment policy the use. However,
ignore or avoid the portions about sexual discrimination. Is GSUSA's sexual
discrimination worthy to be ignored? IMO, it should be. But when ever I've
seen that issue gets ignored, overlooked, or be told that it has no relative
issue or point. But, as always, one cries "DISCRIMINATION Against
Homosexuals or atheists is important. Yet, choose to ignore other forms of
discrimination in the US scouting movement that IS NOT INSIDE OF BSA!
The First Geer family
> >
> >The point is that religions receive both MONEY and any and all support
> >allowed by units' missions. And that by the letter of the law is giving
> >support to religions. Whether it is 1 or 100, it is still supporting
> >religion. I'd like to see a town or even a higher level of government to
> >build and support 1 or more churches. I bet ACLU will be screaming an
> >knocking on their doors, crying Violation of the constitution.
> >
> >Eddie
> >
>
> Two points you might have missed the Churchs on military bases are open to
use
> by all religions, and non-religious groups as well. If a Athiest support
group
> wants to use a chaple they get to use a chaple. If a city government
wished to
> build a building open to all religions, and non-religious uses as well
they
> could and can.
No I did not miss those two points. But, it does seem that you've missed the
point I was making. Whether or not the chapels on military bases are open to
all religions, non-religious groups, etc, they are still chapels. They were
built as a church NOT a meeting place. Furthermore, you'll find Crosses and
even the Star of David being openly displayed there. That my friend is still
supporting and or endorsing religion. But, than you can always mix black and
white to create a grey color to avoid the issue.
Bill Bekkenhuis
<snip>
> In a post-Dale case nothing significant will be different. If Dale applies
> to be leader, and a unit forwards the application, BSA could object on the
> grounds that he is a well-known gay activist who will use his BSA
> memebership for political advantage - which is a new legal issue. Nothing
> would stop BSA from objecting to a leader who made his/her sexual
> activities known to the boys (and arguably, discussing one's sex life with
> a stranger is sexual harassment). Since BSA doesn't investigate who is
> gay, the issue only arises if someone goes around volunteering information
> about their sexual preferences (which is arguably per se inappropriate in
> an organization serving children, even if one's preference is for
> intramarital sex for the purpose of having children).
I'm astonished you would say this - the BSA has fought this tooth and nail all
the way to the Supreme Court.
THEY obviously believe the post-Dale situation will be different.
Even if what you say is true regarding the admittance of Dale (and as Dale, I
believe, currently lives in NY, I'm not sure that's even an issue anymore), if
the Supreme Court finds for Dale - even if they don't hear the case - it will
be impossible for the BSA in NJ to throw anyone out of their program MERELY
for being gay.
There are many ways one can be "known" to be gay - for all practical purposes
- without being an activist.
Finding for Dale or even refusing to hear the case is the whole shooting match
as far as I can tell - at least in NJ.
And those are just the legal issues...
Dwarfing the Supreme Court issue is the court of public opinion issue.
Any further actions against those who are merely known to be gay in NJ will
cause the BSA to be perceived - at least in the more liberal northeast - in
much the same light as southern owners of diners who refused service to blacks
in the fifties and sixties.
They will be effectively delegitimized as an organization fit to teach
children moral values - which, again, is the whole shooting match as far as I
can tell.
Heck, even if the BSA WINS the case, the grounds of their winning may be the
very grounds that cause them to lose their privileged access to school
children.
The BSA rightly perceives the threat on ALL levels (not merely the legal
level) and took care to introduce a constitutional issue early in the case as
is evidenced by their vigorous defense.
Emma Pease
>Two points you might have missed the Churchs on military bases are
>open to use by all religions, and non-religious groups as well. If a
>Athiest support group wants to use a chaple they get to use a chaple.
>If a city government wished to build a building open to all
>religions, and non-religious uses as well they could and can.
Actually the significant difference between the military and civilian
is that once you are in the military you are under government control
24 hours per day and may be in areas where the military does and must
control everything around you (e.g., combat, military bases in the US
and overseas, naval ships, etc). If the military forbade ministers,
priests, priestesses (because they were civilians and civilians
weren't allowed) and places set aside for worship (because they were
on military land), then many soldiers would not be able to practice
their religion which could be deemed a violation of the first
amendment right to free exercise. Instead the military has chosen to
enable access in so far as it does not infringe on military necessity
and in an even handed method as possible even for unpopular religions
(note the fuss last year because a military base allowed the practice
of some Wicca ceremonies).
Note that there are few situations outside of the military where the
government does exercise similar control over someone's life and
therefore must provide access to the free exercise of religion
(prisons/jails being one case). Everyone else has the ability to form
their own groups, choose their own ministers, and establish their own
place of worship independent of any specific government control or
support of religion.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Aaron Kuperman
It seems you may be attaching too much faith in the ability and
competence, and goals, of the lawyers in the case. Lawyers, and in this
case I suspect they were largely "public interest" (if not pro bono)
lawyers, argue the specific facts of the case, and they aren't supposed to
risk losing the case in order to "make a point." It would be much nicer
if American law would allow advisory opinions that soundly address the
issues without having to deal with "fact patterns" that obscure issues,
but that is one thing I'm sure we don't tell boys working on the law merit
badge. This is a very poor case to settle anything.
A better case would be if Dale was widely known to be gay (everyone in the
unit knew he was gay) while refusing to discuss anything pertaining to or
alluding to sexual lifestyle AND was applying to be his son's Den Leader,
and if the unit knowing all this was at least filing a brief for Dale.
However that is a "fact pattern" for a moot court, not a real case.
[posted on lunch time, not company time]
Bill Bekkenhuis (bekke...@fast.net) wrote:
: I'm astonished you would say this - the BSA has fought this tooth and nail all
Leanmc420
>
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>
>> Individual troops could decide if individual leaders were fit for their
>troops,
>> according to the values of their chartering organzation.
>
>The chartering organizations are pretty much the problem. A number of them
>chooses
>to 'support' Scouting to neutralize the movement and the ideas it teaches to
>the youth.
Well, I can't really see this. Some religious chartering organizations use
Scouting units as extensions of their youth programs, but Scouting teaches that
one should follow one's religious tradition.
To me, the main idea behind Scouting is the Patrol Method. Everything else is
great, and is a good idea, but without the Patrol Method the Scout Oath and Law
are just another one of those creeds that people memorize. With the Patrol
Method, a Scout learns to use the Oath and Law in order to manage things
smoothly. When one follows the Scout Oath and Law one becomes a strong
individual that can work well with others. That's absolutely critical for the
patrol method to work.
I think the main problem that "nutralizes" the ideals of Scouting are adults
that try and *run* a Scout troop as opposed to providing support.
>The boyscouts in the USA should strive to become an independant
>organization, which would require a grassroots movement among its members.
>
If the BSA national wouldn't try and impose secterian religous beliefs on all
its units, this wouldn't be such a big deal. I think a BSA with a lot of
diversity, even if some units aren't "PC", would be better than a BSA where
every unit was the same and no room for local variations.
>I happen to live in a country where approx. 10 people out of 125.000 scouts
>care
>about the 3 G's and at least 6 of them primarily in relation to the BSA
>rather than
>their own Scouting organization. How come? We don't have chartering
>organizations
>that strive to impose their ideology on youth through Scouting. That allows
>us to
>center on Scouting as a method for development of the youth, exactly as it
>was
>intended, adopted and maintained throughout history.
>
Sounds nice, I wish the BSA would have more of a live and let live mentality.
>YiS;
>
>
Leanmc420
>
>
>Which makes the Dale case irrelevant since the "finding of fact" is so out
>to someone who "was" morally straight but advocated tolerance for those
>who weren't - but that won't be addressed [to back up my point, imagine
>that issue was someone was was patriotic and pro-environmental but
>form home, not on company time]
>
For this analogy to be accurate, you would have to be talking about toleration
for dissenters, not just disloyal people, or industrialists, not just
anti-envorinmentalists. Homosexuals do not claim to be anti-traditional
values, they just claim to be homosexual. A dissenter *may* be disloyal, an
industrialist *may* be anti-envornmental, a homosexual *may* be against
traditional family values, but not necessarily.
The First Geer family
news:tKce4.2858$v31.2...@ptah.visi.com...
<snip>
> It's your comprehension that's out of line with reality.
>
> The Dale case, assuming no changes from the US supreme court,
> states, flatly, that the BSA is subject to the LAD in New Jersey.
> The BSA will be breaking the law if they discriminate on the basis
> of sexual orientation or religion under this ruling.
Only and only in NJ. NJ's court ruling does not apply or affect any other
state unless that state's court uses the NJ ruling as grounds for their own
findings.
whs
Girls are registered in Sea Scouts ships and Venturing crews.
The main reason that girls are not in Packs, teams and troops is
GSUSA does not want females to have that option.
I have tried to co-operate with GSUSA for 3 decades without success.
Lay that on GSUSA and leave BSA alone.
Again, the following statements are false:
whs
SEX is the primary component of that activism.
whs
Brian Westley wrote:
> Of course not; a person can be a virgin and a gay activist.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
Brian Westley
What you said made no sense at all, as usual.
A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Leanmc420
Its not at all clear what the BSA or supporters of the BSA mean by "gay
activism" . . . or "homosexuality", for that matter. Apparently, people who
want the civil rights of homosexuals protected are gay activists, even if they
disapprove of homosexual sex. The United Methodist Church, the BSA's largest
religious sponsor, takes this position in their churches social principles, so
it is useless to argue that such a position doesn't exist or is against the
moral traditions of the BSA.
David Stephens
>
> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
> A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
Nope. A heterosexual can be an activist for causes associated with gays
but only a gay can be a gay activist. Several of the common "gay" causes
are forcing BSA to change its moral and spiritual standards, forcing
public institutions to stop supporting or even tolerating scouting,
reopening gay public baths that were so closely linked to the early
spread of AIDS in the US, and lowering the age of consent for gay sexual
relations. The closest thing I can think of as a common "gay" cause that
could be considered in the interest of the general population is
lobbying efforts for more money spent on HIV/AIDS research. This effort
has been quite successful in that such funding now dwarfs all other
diseases relative to mortality rates.
David S.
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
>> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
>> A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
>Nope. A heterosexual can be an activist for causes associated with gays
>but only a gay can be a gay activist.
Wrong; a heterosexual advocating for gay rights is a gay activist.
It doesn't describe the person's sexual orientation (since that's
irrelevant), it describes the politics of the activism.
>Several of the common "gay" causes
>are forcing BSA to change its moral and spiritual standards, forcing
>public institutions to stop supporting or even tolerating scouting,
Public institutions have no business supporting the BSA because
of its discrimination on religious and sexual orientation grounds.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
David Stephens
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
> >Brian Westley wrote:
> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
> >> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
>
> >> A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
>
> >Nope. A heterosexual can be an activist for causes associated with gays
> >but only a gay can be a gay activist.
>
> Wrong; a heterosexual advocating for gay rights is a gay activist.
> It doesn't describe the person's sexual orientation (since that's
> irrelevant), it describes the politics of the activism.
I don't agree that a heterosexual is gay because of his politics however
he can be an activist for gay causes.
> >Several of the common "gay" causes
> >are forcing BSA to change its moral and spiritual standards, forcing
> >public institutions to stop supporting or even tolerating scouting,
>
> Public institutions have no business supporting the BSA because
> of its discrimination on religious and sexual orientation grounds.
How about programs that support minority education and career growth,
native and immigrant culture, drug rehabilitation, city golf courses,
etc. They are all discriminatory as are many public programs. Attacking
public entities because they support an institution that helps society
raise its kids is pure destructivism. Your snipped the other common gay
causes. Were they too embarrassing? BSA does have many causes it
supports including the environment, community service, self-reliance
etc. I guess to gay activists these are so bad that they must be done
away with to concentrate on those gay causes such as lowering age of
consent for gay sex, gay marriages, reopening public baths, floats in
ethnic parades etc. Is there some cause of gay activists that is not
primarily in the interest of gays? It would appear that a "gay activist"
is someone who primarily concentrates on selfish motives and is not shy
about damaging anything in their way to achieve those goals. Is this the
kind of example we should set for youth?
David S.
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
>> >Brian Westley wrote:
>> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
>> >> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
>>
>> >> A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
>>
>> >Nope. A heterosexual can be an activist for causes associated with gays
>> >but only a gay can be a gay activist.
>>
>> Wrong; a heterosexual advocating for gay rights is a gay activist.
>> It doesn't describe the person's sexual orientation (since that's
>> irrelevant), it describes the politics of the activism.
>I don't agree that a heterosexual is gay because of his politics
And, if you could read worth a damn, you'd see that I don't say
this at all.
>however
>he can be an activist for gay causes.
That's what a gay activist does.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Aaron Kuperman
else's right to them (and all the more so if being "gay" is a matter of
biology as some argue rather than being a matter of free choice or
preference). Many people who regards homosexuals as perverted queers also
believe that the sovereign should not prosecute adults for consensual
sexual behavior, and believe that someone should not be discriminated
against for private sexual behavior that they keep private. [posted on
lunch time, not company time]
whs (w...@idcnet.com) wrote:
: Talk about a sophist statement:
: > Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
: SEX is the primary component of that activism.
David Stephens
Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>
> One need not agree with one's views (or tastes) in order to defend someone
> else's right to them (and all the more so if being "gay" is a matter of
> biology as some argue rather than being a matter of free choice or
> preference).
I agree and this is exactly what I prefer to instill in youth. The issue
to me is whether someone who makes personal sexuality a public cause
should be a mentor to other peoples' kids. It is established that a
person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
leading. Should males with this attraction to other males be allowed to
supervise male youth free from rules applied to heterosexual males who
supervise female youth under similar circumstances? That is exactly what
is being demanded. The possible motives for such a role under these
circumstances are suspect both from the attraction itself and from
seeking a pulpit to such a captive audience.
David S.
Brian Westley
>.... It is established that a
>person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
>attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
>leading.
Only in your fevered imagination.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
David Stephens
> >> Wrong; a heterosexual advocating for gay rights is a gay activist.
> >> It doesn't describe the person's sexual orientation (since that's
> >> irrelevant), it describes the politics of the activism.
>
> >I don't agree that a heterosexual is gay because of his politics
>
> And, if you could read worth a damn, you'd see that I don't say
> this at all.
The term "gay" describes an individual, not a political cause. An
activist is a politically active individual. Civil rights activist,
environmental activist, right to life activist, abortion rights
activist, etc. are all persons active with specific political causes.
Gay activist is a male homosexual who is active in politics. One could
assume the cause was "gay rights" but that is not certain. If the term
were specifically "gay rights activist" then that could describe any
person that was politically active in gay rights causes but without some
specific political cause specified, a gay activist is a gay person who
acts out presumably in a political fashion.
In my opinion, gay rights should not be any more than human rights in
general. Not all humans are good candidates for mentoring youth. Such a
role is not a "right" but a privilege granted by the organization, the
law, and the parents of the youth.
David S.
whs
leadership.
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
> >>
> >> >SEX is the primary component of that activism.
> >>
> >> Of course not; a person can be a virgin and a gay activist.
> >
> >I said SEX, not sexual activity!
>
> What you said made no sense at all, as usual.
> A heterosexual can be a gay activist.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
David Stephens
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
> >.... It is established that a
> >person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
> >attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
> >leading.
>
> Only in your fevered imagination.
Can you define what makes a person homosexual if it is not romantic
and/or erotic attractions to one's own sex? If they do not have such
attractions, then what makes them gay?
Maybe you are claiming that there could not be a heterosexual attraction
by a 19 year old to a 17 year old. How about 24 and 16 or 30 and 14? I
really don't see the line as so defined in any specific individual nor
any consistency between individuals even if the laws are quite age
specific.
Maybe you are claiming that gays are only attracted to older gays and
always check ID's before having relationships. What is your opinion on
this and please be specific.
Maybe you are claiming "gay" is a political cause and not a male
homosexual? Adult boy scout leadership positions are no place for
political activism.
David S.
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
>> >> Wrong; a heterosexual advocating for gay rights is a gay activist.
>> >> It doesn't describe the person's sexual orientation (since that's
>> >> irrelevant), it describes the politics of the activism.
>>
>> >I don't agree that a heterosexual is gay because of his politics
>>
>> And, if you could read worth a damn, you'd see that I don't say
>> this at all.
>The term "gay" describes an individual, not a political cause.
It can be either, but in the context of 'gay activist', it refers
to the topic of the activism. An enviromentalist would be an
'environmental activist', even if that individual is gay; it would
be misleading to describe a gay environmentalist as a 'gay activist'
simply because the person advocating environmental issues is also gay.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>You missed it again. Any sexual activist should be barred from Scouting
>leadership.
What does this have to do with your erroneous assertion below?
Nothing.
>Brian Westley wrote:
>>
>> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
>> >> >Talk about a sophist statement:
>> >> >> Being a gay activist does not mean one's sex life is public.
>> >>
>> >> >SEX is the primary component of that activism.
...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
>> >person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
>> >attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
>> >leading.
>>
>> Only in your fevered imagination.
>Can you define what makes a person homosexual if it is not romantic
>and/or erotic attractions to one's own sex? If they do not have such
>attractions, then what makes them gay?
>Maybe you are claiming that there could not be a heterosexual attraction
>by a 19 year old to a 17 year old. How about 24 and 16 or 30 and 14? I
>really don't see the line as so defined in any specific individual nor
>any consistency between individuals even if the laws are quite age
>specific.
And I don't see where "it has been established" that such an
attraction would "likely include some of the youth they would be
leading".
---
Merlyn LeRoy
whs
whs
or ????
Homosexuals in the UK think 18 is too old. They want to drop boys
to 16.
It is nice to know that you are programmed differently.
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> writes:
> >.... It is established that a
> >person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
> >attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
> >leading.
>
> Only in your fevered imagination.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>There's little I can do with those lacking a basic grasp of English.
What does this have to do with your erroneous assertion below?
Brian Westley
>So, you have an automatic "shut off" at what...? 16, 18, 21, 25
>or ????
No, if you would take the time to actually read, maybe
you would have a clue.
>Homosexuals in the UK think 18 is too old. They want to drop boys
>to 16.
To match the legal age for heterosexual sex.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
whs
allow us to post in braille which may be the only way to get the idea
through! :-)
Sans a command of basic English, there is no hope of carrying on
a logical discourse with you.
whs
you to have the legal right to copulate with sixteen year old boys?
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
whs
You really don't read well, do you?
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >Brian Westley wrote:
> >>
> >> whs <w...@idcnet.com> writes:
> >> >So, you have an automatic "shut off" at what...? 16, 18, 21, 25
> >> >or ????
> >>
> >> No, if you would take the time to actually read, maybe
> >> you would have a clue.
> >>
> >> >Homosexuals in the UK think 18 is too old. They want to drop boys
> >> >to 16.
> >>
> >> To match the legal age for heterosexual sex.
> >
> >So? Both should be raised.
>
> Gee, I've NEVER seen you complain about heterosexual sex with
> 16-year-olds in the UK.
>
> >You are saying that it is only fair for
> >you to have the legal right to copulate with sixteen year old boys?
>
> Why would I want to? I'm heterosexual and married, moron.
>
> And why haven't you been complaining about the age of consent
> for straights in the UK?
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Leanmc420
>Date: Tue, 11 January 2000 03:39 PM EST
>Message-id: <387B94FD...@flash.net>
>
>
>
>Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>>
>> One need not agree with one's views (or tastes) in order to defend someone
>> else's right to them (and all the more so if being "gay" is a matter of
>> biology as some argue rather than being a matter of free choice or
>> preference).
>
>I agree and this is exactly what I prefer to instill in youth. The issue
>to me is whether someone who makes personal sexuality a public cause
>person who claims to be gay is claiming to have romantic and/or erotic
>attraction that would likely include some of the youth they would be
>leading.
No, it is *unlikely* that an adult would have a romantic or erotic attraction
to a teenage minor. Most adults do not have such desire to teenagers. It is
an abberation for adults to have or act on romantic attractions to teenage
minors.
And Scoutmasters don't "lead" Scouts. That's the SPL's job. Just a nit to
pick.
>Should males with this attraction to other males be allowed to
>supervise male youth free from rules applied to heterosexual males who
>supervise female youth under similar circumstances? That is exactly what
>is being demanded.
No, that is not what is being demanded. The BSA has a YPP that is the same for
males and females. There is no one demanding that homosexual Scouters should
not follow the YPP.
Brian Westley
>Incredibly, you missed it again. Unfortunately, this medium does not
>allow us to post in braille which may be the only way to get the idea
>through! :-)
Since you never post explanations, only claims that you already
HAVE explained it, I don't see how.
And, since your claim that sex is part of gay activism is wrong,
that's never going to happen anyway.
---
Merlyn LeRoy