Gays v. Boy Scouts of America
Tracey Levin
At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful
experience.
But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
We just didn't need to face all of that while having
tons of fun learning to be a Scout.
Liberals and homosexuals (often one and the same), are
very wrong trying to force the Boy Scouts of America to open it's doors
to people who will force change on this fantastic private organization.
Because the BSA is private, they have been able to resist
all attempts to force them to change, but liberals and homosexuals will
not rest until they force everyone to accept them.
Don't you find it interesting that homosexuals are
trying to force their way into an organization filled with little boys?
Why are adult homosexual men so concerned about becoming
Scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts of America?
Robert Schroeder
uhhh...tracey/david (perhaps I should shorten this to just plain
"idiot") The Girls Scouts has no such ban against lesbians or athesist.
None. Not one.
And the Boy Scouts is one of there groups chartered by Congress...the
other two being the Girl Scouts and The Red Cross. The Boy Scouts use
public lands, public buildings and public funds. Therefore, the Boy
Scouts have no business excluding anyone from their ranks. They are not
a private organization.
And this issue of 'gay scoutmasters' is a red-herring. Gays have served
as scout masters since the inception of the Boy Scouts. Gay men are not
interested in 'molesting' little boys (of course, I understand that your
idiot mind cannot comprehend this), but rather, they are more interested
in serving as a positive role model. This issue is more over the Scouts
practice of kicking out boys who have worked long and hard to achieve
the highest rank possible in Scouts, only to be denied that rank because
the BSA didn't like their religion or their sexual orientation.
If you are so interested in keeping the BSA 'so pure', how about
starting your own orgainzation, and call it "FBA"...Future Bigots of
America.
Robert
salz...@flash.net
In article <34FD0D...@swbell.net>,
Mb...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> Tracey Levin wrote:
> >
> > GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
> >
> > At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
> > But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
> > We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
> > learning to be a Scout.
<deletia>
> uhhh...tracey/david (perhaps I should shorten this to just plain
> "idiot") The Girls Scouts has no such ban against lesbians or athesist.
> None. Not one.
. . .and you can take it to the bank that lesbians *were* present, although
driven deeply into the closet by bigotry.
For that matter, if David. . .er. . ."Tracey" was indeed a Girl Scout, it's
obvious that at least one boy was present also.
David, are you trolling or are you *really* so stupid as to think you can
convince us that "Tracey" and "David" are separate people?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jane Gallion
Tracey Levin wrote:
<the usual>
Do you *have* another hobby other than bigotry? Get help.
--Jane
Conan The Librarian
[Followups trimmed]
In article <34FCF3E3...@swbell.net>, Tracey Levin
<trac...@swbell.net> writes:
> --------------35AE889B23B6A8252A4D4796
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
>
> At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
So I take it you had a sex change? Or are you just a
transvestite?
Or are you saying you didn't post the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 713-SWM Seeking SWF
From: Tracey <trac...@swbell.net>
Date: 1997/03/14
Message-ID: <3329CD...@swbell.net>
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish
In search of single white female in 713/409 area who is fun, loves
adventure, and sex. Nice bod/ big breats and,or bushy are nice
attributes.
Do you want to play?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
Heh.
> [snip of usual bs from Tracey/David]
> Don't you find it interesting that homosexuals are trying to force their
> way into an organization filled with little boys?
> Why are adult homosexual men so concerned about becoming Scoutmasters in
> the Boy Scouts of America?
Gee, I dunno. I also wonder why men are so interested in coaching
girls' sports.
Could it be that they don't feel it is right to be kicked
out simply because they are gay?
Now pay close attention here. I'm going to make a point, and I'm
going to make it very simple so it doesn't to go sailing over your
pointy little head:
If it is shown that someone made a pass at a child, then they
should be kicked out. Period.
That is inappropriate *behavior*. Being gay does not mean that
someone engages in that behavior.
Got it?
Chuck Vance
Heidi Halstead
Tracey Levin wrote:
>
> At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
> But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
I find it interesting that you know for certain that none of the women
who participated as girls in your troup have had sexual experiences with
other women since that time. You must be very nosy.
It's also interesting that you seem to know for certain about the sex
lives of your troup leaders (those moms) - how did you get this
information? Did all those women tell you about their sexuality?
I don't think anyone on this newsgroup believes you know one single bit
about any of those women's sexuality, their experiences, or their
desires, whether they are lesbian, heterosexual or bisexual.
You are one ignorant person.
heidi
Jay Patrick Howard
Tracey Levin (trac...@swbell.net) wrote:
: We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
: learning to be a Scout.
This is the only valid argument I've seen. It also works for defending
same sex fitness centers, schools, etc.
: Don't you find it interesting that homosexuals are trying to force their
: way into an organization filled with little boys?
This is a low blow (pardon the pun), and discredits your earlier point.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not one in the same.
: Why are adult homosexual men so concerned about becoming Scoutmasters in
: the Boy Scouts of America?
Its not that every homosexual wants to be a Scoutmaster, they simply don't
want to be denied the opportunity, should they wish to be one. Note: I
support the BSA in this one, to tell the truth, but I can definitely
understand the opposition's point. In my mind, private clubs like the
scouts shouldn't be bossed around by the fed...but that's just me.
Jay Patrick Howard
Robert Schroeder (Mb...@swbell.net) wrote:
: public lands, public buildings and public funds. Therefore, the Boy
: Scouts have no business excluding anyone from their ranks. They are not
: a private organization.
Aaaah...this I did not know. As a scout we used public campgrounds, but
it was always my understanding that we paid all the normal entrance fees.
Our building was actually owned by a church (go figure). We paid for our
uniforms & camping equip. by fundraisers or our parents.
Not that I doubt you, but how does the government contribute funds to the
BSA? Does it go directly to the national office?
Clay Maugans
I read a little about this in the paper (oh, what a wonderful fact
filled error free source of info, but alas, it's the best we got).
Anyway, they indicated this guy was an avowed homosexual who demanded
his right to be boy scout leader. What concerned me is this guy sounds
like someone with a chip on his shoulder and is trying to use the boy
scouts to further his political/sexual philosophys. That isn't what the
boyscouts should be about. If he's gay, fine. If he's gay, very vocal
about it, and demands that he be embraced as a boyscout rolemodel for
your kids, then I question the purity of his motives.
Just MHO.
-Clay
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:25:40 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
>But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
>We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
>learning to be a Scout.
Good. It's great that you were kept within a closed group with closed minds and
didn't have to deal with those "homosexuals." I'm sure reality gave you a nice,
quick, and violent 1-2 punch when you got out.
>Liberals and homosexuals (often one and the same), are very wrong trying
Why would a homosexual be conservative - particularly since so many are of the
religious persuasion? It's analagous to a black joining the KKK.
>to force the Boy Scouts of America to open it's doors to people who will
>force change on this fantastic private organization.
>Because the BSA is private, they have been able to resist all attempts
BSA is way behind the times. It is controlled by religious conservatives
desperately hanging on to days and ideals that never really were. Their minds
are so closed that they cannot deal with today's realities.
>to force them to change, but liberals and homosexuals will not rest
>until they force everyone to accept them.
>Don't you find it interesting that homosexuals are trying to force their
>way into an organization filled with little boys?
>Why are adult homosexual men so concerned about becoming Scoutmasters in
>the Boy Scouts of America?
Gee, perhaps they think that they have something positive to contribute?
It's depressing how the likes of you are blinded by homosexuality. If one
rattled off a list of qualities to the likes of you, the quality "homosexual"
would probably instantly cause you to forget all the other qualities that had
been named.
-=Erik=-
http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu/
"He's got to find a doctor, a very special doctor/
Someone who can cure his mind/
Someone who knows Harry's kind."
Beatriz Nguyen
Jay Patrick Howard wrote:
> Tracey Levin (trac...@swbell.net) wrote:
> : We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
> : learning to be a Scout.
>
> same sex fitness centers, schools, etc.
"We just didn't need to face...", taken out of (the original
prejudicial) context, of course, is for me a strong argument for
not having discrimination of any kind in the Boy Scouts. Having to
face discrimination at an early age is hard and not good, both to
the individual and the larger society, and I believe we as a species
should work to eliminate it.
I agree that it is also an argument for same-sex groups, but I am
highly reluctant to automatically extend it to be an argument
for same-sexual-orientation groups. At least for groups which,
though they may argued to be private, the public has an overriding
interest and involvement in.
Anyway, I read and was very much inspired by the article in the
recent Texas Triangle about Steven Cozza, the 12yo boy (straight)
in CA who is trying to change the Boy Scouts' discriminatory
policy, by collecting a million signatures for a petition.
His effort is described in:
http://members.aol.com/cozzahived
Beatriz Nguyen
> Anyway, I read and was very much inspired by the article in the
> recent Texas Triangle about Steven Cozza, the 12yo boy (straight)
> in CA who is trying to change the Boy Scouts' discriminatory
I forgot to mention, if you haven't read this the above
article in the 2/26/98 issue:
There is an accompanying article on the "ultimate irony".
It presents reasoned, voluminous, and convincing
(although circumstantial) evidence that Lord Robert
Baden-Powell, the founder of the scouting movement,
was homosexual.
It also argues why Baden-Powell would likely not have
supported the exclusion of gays and lesbians from scouting
programs.
There is also an article on the Girl Scouts of the USA,
which does not discriminate based on orientation.
Jay Patrick Howard
Beatriz Nguyen (bea...@AustinTX.org) wrote:
: I agree that it is also an argument for same-sex groups, but I am
: highly reluctant to automatically extend it to be an argument
: for same-sexual-orientation groups. At least for groups which,
: though they may argued to be private, the public has an overriding
: interest and involvement in.
True. I guess if a large number of private, national grocery store chains
started refusing to sell to <insert group>, it would be bad. I'm just not
sure the Boy Scouts are so "essential" that they should be prevented from
accepting (denying) whomever they choose.
Bud
Jane Gallion <cha...@io.com> wrote in article <34FD51...@io.com>...
> Tracey Levin wrote:
>
> <the usual>
>
> Do you *have* another hobby other than bigotry? Get help.
>
identity, maybe Tracey/David's other hobbies include cross-dressing and
trips to the closest mental health professional to get treatment for
her/his/it/their problem of multiply personality disorder. (Of course
Tracey/David's biggest problem is that all of her/his/it/their
personalities are idiots!)
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos
In article <34fd8b88.131272082@news>, dr.fei...@mail.utexas.edu
(Corporate Hack) wrote:
>>Liberals and homosexuals (often one and the same), are very wrong trying
>
>Why would a homosexual be conservative - particularly since so many are of the
>religious persuasion? It's analagous to a black joining the KKK.
This is the only portion of your argument I disagree with. Perhaps you've
never met a Log Cabin Republican, whose members are usually conservative,
white, male republicans. Your analogy to the KKK is invalid as the KKK
has membership requirements that exclude Blacks. There is no official
"Conservative" organization, thus anyone can be defined or self defined as
one, even a homosexual. If you want to nitpick about socially
conservative, fiscally conservative, morally conservative, go right
ahead. Take for example homosexuals who are anti abortion and anti
affirmative action and anti welfare. They do exist. How many Black
Klansmen do you know?
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Sergio Acosta
Tracey Levin (or is it David the multi-village idiot??) wrote:
->
-> GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
->
-> At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
David, are you experiencing gender topsy-turvyness? Are those "impure"
sexual urges keeping you up at night again?
You better get a grip on those urges or you'll go straight (pun intended)
to hell.
--
Sergio Acosta
sac...@tamu.edu
Walter Eric Johnson
Robert Schroeder (Mb...@swbell.net) wrote:
: And the Boy Scouts is one of there groups chartered by Congress...the
: other two being the Girl Scouts and The Red Cross. The Boy Scouts use
: Scouts have no business excluding anyone from their ranks. They are not
: a private organization.
Hmm. I used to be a Boy Scout. Nearly all of our campouts were on
private land, not public land. Our meetings took place in a Methodist
Church. Of course, we did travel on public roadways to get where we
are going, but that would not make the Boy Scouts a public organization.
FWIW, there are plenty of people who form their own local groups for
kids who want to go camping without the Boy Scouts. There is nothing
to keep any gay man who wants to be a scout leader from recruiting his
own non-BSA group for such purposes. Of course, an openly gay male
recruiting kids for such an organization would be justifiably looked
upon as "highly suspect".
Eric Johnson
Robert Schroeder
Jay Patrick Howard wrote:
>
> Robert Schroeder (Mb...@swbell.net) wrote:
>
> : public lands, public buildings and public funds. Therefore, the Boy
> : Scouts have no business excluding anyone from their ranks. They are not
> : a private organization.
>
> it was always my understanding that we paid all the normal entrance fees.
> Our building was actually owned by a church (go figure). We paid for our
> uniforms & camping equip. by fundraisers or our parents.
>
> Not that I doubt you, but how does the government contribute funds to the
> BSA? Does it go directly to the national office?
Boy Scouts are chartered by the Congress. The President serves as
honorary chair. Many Boy Scout camps are located on public lands, and
in many cases, scout troops are allowed to meet in school buildings and
many troops are sponsered by government groups (i.e. police departments,
sheriffs offices, military bases) Scouts use the public schools in
order to recruit. Many scouting districts recieve funds from the United
Way, although this has changed in recent years. The Austin UW received
enough flack over the issue that now you must designate you funds to go
to the BSA.
Benjamin Justin Cain
: At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
: But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
: We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
: learning to be a Scout.
[snip]
I'm choking, I'm laughing so hard!
Best bait I've seen in a while... I especially like the hackneyed bit
about homosexuality=pedophilia...
May your catches be many and large.
--
Ben Cain : Biker Scum - Yellowshirt Brigade #514
AMA HRCA TMGP CMRA/WERA DoD # 1/137 KoK3
1990 VFR750F "Deal's Gimp"
1989 YSR50/3 TMGP Endurance #49
1988 Ninja 600 CMRA Endurance #46
http://www.users.cts.com/king/d/drlubell/bscum.html
"So basically if we hit turn one wide open, we oughtta be ok. Right?"
- BS Nathan, waxing philosophical at Texas World Speedway -
tick
In article <34FD7552...@acs.tamu.edu>, Clay Maugans
<cbm...@acs.tamu.edu> wrote:
Interesting take Clay. To summarize, the boy scouts should not be
able to exclude somebody because he's gay, but exclusion because he's
a jerk is just fine. I can agree with that.
-tick
Tracey Levin
Beatriz Nguyen wrote:
> "We just didn't need to face...", taken out of (the original
> prejudicial) context, of course, is for me a strong argument for
> not having discrimination of any kind in the Boy Scouts. Having to
> face discrimination at an early age is hard and not good, both to
> the individual and the larger society,
Nguyen, we are not talking about "queer" little boys wanting to join the
BSA.It is "queer" big boys who want to teach the children in the BSA!
How many homosexual children under the age of 16 have you known?
What is really at stake here are the rights of private groups. Will they be
overthrown by
leftist do-gooders in the courts, or Congress who are trying to appease
their "queer" and, or athieistic constituients?
Private groups deserve to maintain their rights to limit membership based
upon any criteria they happen to come up with. Public groups are different.
Homosexuals and atheists will try to force the rest of us to accept them at
all costs.
But, of course, all they are doing is driving a wedge between the various
groups involved.
Jane Gallion
Heidi Halstead wrote:
>
> Tracey Levin wrote:
> You are one ignorant person.
Heidi, Tracy/David is *several* ignorant people. <ahem>
--Jane
Jane Gallion
tick wrote:
>
> In article <34FD7552...@acs.tamu.edu>, Clay Maugans
> <cbm...@acs.tamu.edu> wrote:
If he's gay, very vocal
> > about it, and demands that he be embraced as a boyscout rolemodel for
> > your kids, then I question the purity of his motives.
> Interesting take Clay. To summarize, the boy scouts should not be
> able to exclude somebody because he's gay, but exclusion because he's
> a jerk is just fine. I can agree with that.
Fr shirr. Precedent wd then allow us to eject Tracy/David & possibly Ronzone
from this ng. But durn! No more First Amendment. Too big a price to pay.
--Jane
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Beatriz Nguyen wrote:
>
> > "We just didn't need to face...", taken out of (the original
> > prejudicial) context, of course, is for me a strong argument for
> > not having discrimination of any kind in the Boy Scouts. Having to
> > face discrimination at an early age is hard and not good, both to
> > the individual and the larger society,
>
> Nguyen, we are not talking about "queer" little boys wanting to join the
> BSA.It is "queer" big boys who want to teach the children in the BSA!
> How many homosexual children under the age of 16 have you known?
So what you are concerned about is "recruitment", that these gay scoutmasters
will some how convince all these children to become gay. I find that SOOOOO
humorous of an arguement. As a gay friend on mine pointed out, if people
can be recruited to be straight or gay, then homosexuality wouldn't exist
because our society is geared to recruit people to be straight every day.
> What is really at stake here are the rights of private groups.
I don't think anyone denies the fact that private groups can regulate
their membership based on sexual orientation if they choose. Since the
Boy Scouts are a public organization, they have no such right.
> Will they be overthrown by leftist do-gooders in the courts,
Are you aware that most federal judges in this country were appointed
by either Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush? Those leftist do-gooders!
> or Congress
> who are trying to appease their "queer" and, or athieistic constituients?
HAHAHAHAHA! The Christian right (the source of my favorite politically based
bumpersticker: The Christian right is neither) has FAR more political clout
in Congress than any gay rights groups. The Christian right's clout ranks up
there with the NRA and tobacco lobby.
> Private groups deserve to maintain their rights to limit membership based
> upon any criteria they happen to come up with. Public groups are different.
And the BSA is public. Plus private groups cannot limit their membership
on any criteria they choose. There are limitations.
> Homosexuals and atheists will try to force the rest of us to accept them at
> all costs.
And this is a bad thing? Even an upstanding conservative Christian such as
yourself should follow the Lord's word when he said that you do unto the
least of my children, you do unto me.
Craig (Liberal) Gowens
Hook'em Horns
University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/
"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00
curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
--Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game
"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
it to his team's advantage."
--"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU
Tracey Levin
Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
> Hmm. I used to be a Boy Scout. Nearly all of our campouts were on
> private land, not public land. Our meetings took place in a Methodist
> Church. Of course, we did travel on public roadways to get where we
> are going, but that would not make the Boy Scouts a public organization.
>
> FWIW, there are plenty of people who form their own local groups for
> kids who want to go camping without the Boy Scouts. There is nothing
> to keep any gay man who wants to be a scout leader from recruiting his
> own non-BSA group for such purposes. Of course, an openly gay male
> recruiting kids for such an organization would be justifiably looked
> upon as "highly suspect".
>
> Eric Johnson
Hi Eric!
The problem here is two fold, homosexuals and atheists want laws which will
require everyone to accept them, even private organizations. Secondly,
liberals want to eliminate groups like the BSA because they influence children
toward faith in God, Traditional Family Values, and patriotism. All of these
values are a threat to liberal institutions. A powerful faith in God may lead
you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is politically
incorrect.
Traditional Family Values place emphasis on God and normal family life, but
not homosexuality, or the "gay" lifestyle. Patriotism is something liberals
particularly despise. According to liberalism, patriotism is divisive, mean,
and awful! Being proud of your country, heritage, faith, culture, and race
are absolutely some of the most evil emotions a person can have unless he is
an Indian, etc.
So, it's time to bring down anything that will cause conflict with the liberal
agenda.
Tracey Levin
Tracey Levin
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
nothing worth repeating.
Craig, the BSA is a private org.
Homosexuality is immoral.
And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
conflicts with
their nutty value system. Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
men anyway"!
HA! How funny!
My bumper sticker says "Visualize No Liberals!"
Don't you love it!?!
Tracey
Mathews J. Thundyil
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) <NOSPAMc...@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL> wrote:
>
>And this is a bad thing? Even an upstanding conservative Christian such as
>yourself should follow the Lord's word when he said that you do unto the
>least of my children, you do unto me.
Dude, I think he means that he doesn't want to children
to "bend and submit" as much as he doesn't want to
"bend and submit" himself.
Matt Thundyil
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
ma...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mathews J. Thundyil) wrote:
> Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> >
> >And this is a bad thing? Even an upstanding conservative Christian such as
> >yourself should follow the Lord's word when he said that you do unto the
> >least of my children, you do unto me.
>
> Dude, I think he means that he doesn't want to children
> to "bend and submit" as much as he doesn't want to
> "bend and submit" himself.
I don't think that's the meaning of "accept" he/she/it intended, but
to cover that arena, "accepting" in that context is highly illegal
and totally immoral. But peophilia and homosexuality are two totally
different things.
Craig K. Gowens
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
>
> Craig, the BSA is a private org.
The Court ruling in New Jersey disagrees. The court's opinion is what
counts, not yours.
> Homosexuality is immoral.
On what basis?
> And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
> conflicts with
> their nutty value system.
The same is true of rightist bigots. The Bible was used to justify slavery
of blacks for God's sake.
> Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
> men anyway"!
> HA! How funny!
No, I have a real problem with people that view the Bible as 1) a completely
factual historical text and 2) a legally binding word of law. The Bible was
authored by people, not God. People throughout time have oppressed and "hated"
other groups of people for qualities they found undesirable. Many of these
impressions ended up in the Bible. For that reason the Bible cannot be
looked to as a perfect work. The Bible has passages that conflict other
passages.
> My bumper sticker says "Visualize No Liberals!"
> Don't you love it!?!
Ever looked up the definition of liberal? As Bill Maher once joked, when
you see the definition of liberal, its things you want to be, but people
have so corrupted its bieng a bad word. To be liberal is to be tolerant,
open-minded and in favor of progress. (I find it very ironic that as I
write this watching Garth Brooks: Ireland and Back special on TV, the
song he's singing is We Shall be Free, a song about tolerance and open-
mindedness.)
Tracey Levin
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> > nothing worth repeating.
> >
> > Craig, the BSA is a private org.
>
> The Court ruling in New Jersey disagrees. The court's opinion is what
> counts, not yours.
New Jersey is but one court. California did not force the BSA to accept homosexual
Scout Masters. The BSA is a private org, but homosexual adult males want to
become Scout Masters for some reason.
>
>
> > Homosexuality is immoral.
>
> On what basis?
On the basis that God says so. What documents, teachings, etc. do you
turn to for instruction and truth?
>
>
>
> > And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
> > conflicts with
> > their nutty value system.
>
> The same is true of rightist bigots. The Bible was used to justify slavery
> of blacks for God's sake.
Well, it's nice of you to admit your bias!
> > Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
> > men anyway"!
> > HA! How funny!
> Ever looked up the definition of liberal? As Bill Maher once joked, when
> you see the definition of liberal, its things you want to be, but people
> have so corrupted its bieng a bad word. To be liberal is to be tolerant,
> open-minded and in favor of progress. (I find it very ironic that as I
> write this watching Garth Brooks: Ireland and Back special on TV, the
> song he's singing is We Shall be Free, a song about tolerance and open-
> mindedness.)
It's very funny how just today, we see "liberals" being very intolerant! And,
certainly they are not at all "openminded"!
For if they were, they would not be trying to force their value system on the
Boy Scouts of America!
Bill Maher is often confused.
Tracey Levin
Jane Gallion wrote:
Jane is a very pro-homosexual.
Tracey Levin
Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
Robert Schroeder (Mb...@swbell.net) wrote:
: Boy Scouts are chartered by the Congress.Out of curiousity, what does "being chartered by Congress" entail?
Do you mean that the Boy Scouts were created by an Act of Congress
or what? Is the Boy Scouts a branch of the Federal government?: The President serves as
: honorary chair.Which means little or nothing. You can create an organization and
make the President an honorary chair without making that organization
a branch of the U.S. government.: Many Boy Scout camps are located on public lands, and
Please provide such an example. Also, please note that there is a
distinction between a boy scout camp and boy scouts camping for the
weekend in a state or national park. Or are you suggesting that anyone
who visits a national park automagically becomes a branch of the
Federal government?: in many cases, scout troops are allowed to meet in school buildings and
: many troops are sponsered by government groups (i.e. police departments,
: sheriffs offices, military bases)
Sponsors? They have sponsors now? We never had a sponsor of any kind.
Our scoutmaster was a John Deere mechanic and our assistant scoutmaster
an employee of the telephone company. Surely you are not suggesting
that that made our scout troop a division of John Deere or of Ma Bell.: Scouts use the public schools in
: order to recruit.Hmmm. We never did. And our public school did a lot of things you
don't see in your city schools. (Such as giving away a .22 caliber
pistol as a prize in a school contest.): Many scouting districts recieve funds from the United
: Way, although this has changed in recent years.
Please provide evidence that the United Way is a branch of the
Federal Government. I always thought it was some kind of non-profit
charity organization.: The Austin UW received
: enough flack over the issue that now you must designate you funds to go
: to the BSA.
What the BSA needs to do is cite the fact that Planned Parenthood is a private company that gets zillions of Federal tax dollars each and every year! And, in some public school districts, Planned Parenthood representatives hand out information to the students informing them of services offered by Planned Parenthood.Isn't this an example of a private company making use of public facilities?The Boy Scouts have the right to run their organization as they see fit.
They don't want gay scoutmasters and have every right to refuse to do
so.Eric Johnson
Are they are doing this to enhance their bottom line?
Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other business in the country.
Therefore, if the private org. known as Planned Parenthood, who gets many millions in TAX DOLLARS can make use of public facilities, then so can any other private company / organization including the Boy Scouts of America.
Listen closely and you'll hear liberals squealing about
now.
Tracey Levin
> It also argues why Baden-Powell would likely not have
> supported the exclusion of gays and lesbians from scouting
> programs.
Ahh, thinking for the dead now. Very convincing.
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> > Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> > > nothing worth repeating.
> > >
> > > Craig, the BSA is a private org.
> >
> > The Court ruling in New Jersey disagrees. The court's opinion is what
> > counts, not yours.
>
> New Jersey is but one court. California did not force the BSA to accept
homosexual
> Scout Masters.
New Jersey and California are two different states. One has a law that public
organizations cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The
other does not. Figure out which is which and you will understand the
difference in why the two courst ruled differently.
> The BSA is a private org, but homosexual adult males want to
> become Scout Masters for some reason.
Maybe the problem is all of us heterosexuals that want to keep homosexuals out.
> > > Homosexuality is immoral.
> >
> > On what basis?
>
> On the basis that God says so.
Gee, when did God tell you this? Did he tell someone else who told you?
How do you know that person was telling the truth? Were you present
when God said this? Or are you going by the aforementioned book WRITTEN
BY PEOPLE AND NOT GOD to provide you with all of your bigoted views
of homosexuals. Even if you do go by that book, you are breaking the
law that Jesus laid down to love thy neighbor as thyself, there being
no law greater than this.
> What documents, teachings, etc. do you
> turn to for instruction and truth?
No documents encompass my religous beliefs. Like I said, the Bible should
not be held as some all knowing truthful book. I do follow the teachings of
Jesus Christ, though. (This reminds me of the Bum Steer Awards in Texas
Monthly a few years ago. They gave a Bum Steer Award to a Republican
candidate who in laying down his political philosophy said he believed God
to be a Republican. The heading for the paragraph in the magazine was
"But his son was a Democrat". ;-)
> > > And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a
verse that
> > > conflicts with
> > > their nutty value system.
> >
> > The same is true of rightist bigots. The Bible was used to justify slavery
> > of blacks for God's sake.
>
> Well, it's nice of you to admit your bias!
My bias! I do not condone slavery and I find it sickening that people tried to
use religion to hold a people in bondage. In the early 1800's, those held in
physical bondage were blacks. Today, we hold homosexuals in political
bondage.
> > > Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
> > > men anyway"!
> > > HA! How funny!
> > Ever looked up the definition of liberal? As Bill Maher once joked, when
> > you see the definition of liberal, its things you want to be, but people
> > have so corrupted its bieng a bad word. To be liberal is to be tolerant,
> > open-minded and in favor of progress. (I find it very ironic that as I
> > write this watching Garth Brooks: Ireland and Back special on TV, the
> > song he's singing is We Shall be Free, a song about tolerance and open-
> > mindedness.)
>
> It's very funny how just today, we see "liberals" being very intolerant!
Intolerant of what? A so called right of an organization to discrimante against
a person on the basis of sexual orientation?
> And,
> certainly they are not at all "openminded"!
They are more open minded than conservatives.
> For if they were, they would not be trying to force their value
system on the
> Boy Scouts of America!
Who is forcing a value system on who? Sorry, but teaching children that
homosexuals are evil by excluding their membership is hardly a value I'd
want my children to learn. You teach children intolerance by exclusion.
They grow up to be parents that do the same thing to their children. Its
a vicious cycle of evil.
> Bill Maher is often confused.
Is this your masked way of calling him liberal?
I don't always agree with him either, but his show certainly does a good job
of trying to present many different views of many different topics.
Kyle Wedin
I'm almost afraid to jump in the fray here, but I was trying to
clarify something. It seems a large part of the legal debate here (I'm
putting aside the moral mudslinging back and forth) is the question of
is Boy Scouts a public organization. Both "sides" (I use the term
hesitatingly - I think we're seeing some extremes in the debate here)
have said it's public or it's private, but not too much to back it up. I
believe Craig said that the court ruled against BSA because it was a
public org. For that, can someone point me to a report of that (nothing
personal Craig, but I do like making sure third/fourth/fifth hand info
hasn't changed.)
Other arguments include that it was chartered by Congress and has
the president as honorary chairman (or something like that.) I can't
verify the president thing, but, since the Boy Scouts was founded by
that guy in England, how is it chartered by the US? And, I made a quick
trip to the BSA homepage, where they list their sources of money at the
various level, and it all seems to come from personal scout's sources,
private bequests, and stuff like United Way (which is still not part of
the government.) So, pretty much, I'm asking how is BSA government
related?
Maybe this will help me understand the legal parts of the
controversy. Maybe people will jump off the deep end of this one -
hopefully, people can stick to some facts here, or at least say when
something is their opinion. Thanks!
-Kyle
George R. Welch
In article <6dl0mo$51t$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Walter Eric Johnson <wej...@scully.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>The Boy Scouts have the right to run their organization as they see fit.
>They don't want gay scoutmasters and have every right to refuse to do so.
Well, I used to think that too, but now I see that it is no
longer true in New Jersey. Of course, you used to have to cook and camp
to make Eagle. Things change.
--George
--
George R. Welch O- g...@tamu.edu http://leona.tamu.edu/george/
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
kwe...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> I'm almost afraid to jump in the fray here, but I was trying to
> clarify something. It seems a large part of the legal debate here (I'm
> putting aside the moral mudslinging back and forth) is the question of
> is Boy Scouts a public organization. Both "sides" (I use the term
> hesitatingly - I think we're seeing some extremes in the debate here)
> have said it's public or it's private, but not too much to back it up. I
> believe Craig said that the court ruled against BSA because it was a
> public org. For that, can someone point me to a report of that (nothing
> personal Craig, but I do like making sure third/fourth/fifth hand info
> hasn't changed.)
None taken. Here are some sites that have the AP story. I included
multiple sites not know which will change.
http://www.news-observer.com/24hour/nao/newsroom/ntn/nation/030298/nation20_20790.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds2.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/03/076l-030398-idx.html
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
wej...@scully.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) wrote:
> Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> : their membership based on sexual orientation if they choose. Since the
> : Boy Scouts are a public organization, they have no such right.
>
> organization".
The ruling of the Appellate Division of State Superior Court of the State
of New Jersey.
> It might help to start with a definition of a
> "public organization".
From Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary:
public ...known by, open to or available to most or all people.
New Jersey has a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Thus in the State of New Jersey, the Boy Scouts of America
cannot discrimiante against gays and lesbians.
> : And the BSA is public. Plus private groups cannot limit their membership
> : on any criteria they choose. There are limitations.
>
> Please list all private groups you can think of which cannot lawfully
> exclude a gay adult from a leadership position within that group based
> on the fact that he is gay.
I wasn't refering to sexual orientation as one of the limitations.
I was speaking of things such as race or gender.
Pink Chicken
GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun learning to be a Scout.
Umm. Lesbians are allowed in Girl Scouts. It's a publicly funded agency. They have to. I've encountered many a lesbian (a few of the counselors were) while working at a Girl Scout camp.
--
*************************************************************
Callie ----> Me
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Chacun devrait savoir l'amour d'une boisson givrée.
Jeder sollte die Liebe eines eisigen Getränkes kennen.
Cada uno debe saber el amante de una bebida escarchada.
"If a Shmoo has big feet (B) and produces little footed (b) Shmoos,
what is the possible genotype of the Shmoo?" -actual test question.
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC)
> :
> : Oh yeah, the ole homosexual=pedophile red herring.
>
> Note that I didn't equate the two.
>
> The homosexual male may not have the intention of molesting the boys,
> but there is certainly a higher probability of him doing so,
> whether intentionally or on the spur of the moment, than a heterosexual
> male.
Proof please, or is this an assumption? When I took a child psychology
class here at UT, this topic was discussed briefly. I don't remember the
exact figure but it was extremely high that most cases of molestation
of girls by men AND boys by men are done by heterosexuals. Even with
such a figure, since the number of homosexuals in the general population
is not known, a probablity like the one you describe really isn't feasible.
> : Or would a openly heterosexual female recruiting for her boy scout troop
> : also be "justifiably looked upon as 'highly suspect'"?
>
> Yep. Just as it would be justifiably looked upon as "highly suspect" if
> an adult male wished to operate a girl scout troop.
In light of the teacher and that 13 year old, maybe the BSA should reconsider
their stance on allowing women scoutmasters. That has as much basis as a
ban on homosexual males. Its also worth noting the GSA to my knowledge does
not discriminate against male scoutmasters or gay or lesbian scoutmasters
for that matter.
ry...@lionking.org
In article <34FCF3E3...@swbell.net>,
Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
>
> At an early age, I was a Girl scout; it was a wonderful experience.
> But, I am thankful that no boys, or lesbians were present.
> We just didn't need to face all of that while having tons of fun
> learning to be a Scout.
LoL! You scare me. :) You know what I need? I need about 20,000 more
people like you. We can all go and live on a deserted island; I can be your
master, you all can be my servants. We can spend time singleing out a few
people at a time and take turns hunting them down. Sound fun?
-Ryan
http://www.lionking.org/~ryan/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Max
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
>
> > I
> > believe Craig said that the court ruled against BSA because it was a
> > public org. For that, can someone point me to a report of that (nothing
> > personal Craig, but I do like making sure third/fourth/fifth hand info
> > hasn't changed.)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/03/076l-030398-idx.html
>
It's certainly not settled law. Here's an excerpt from the story at the
above url:
Court Rejects Boy Scouts' Ban on Gays
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 3, 1998; Page A09
TRENTON, N.J., March 2—The Boy Scouts of America's ban
on
admitting homosexuals violates New Jersey's laws
against discrimination, a
state appeals court ruled.
<SNIP>
He was expelled by the Monmouth Council of the Boy
Scouts in 1990
after the group learned in the newspaper that he was
gay. He sued and a
lower court judge ruled in the Scouts' favor in 1995,
calling homosexuality
"a serious moral wrong" and agreeing with the Boy
Scouts of America that
the group is a private organization and has a
constitutional right to decide
who can belong.
The Appellate Division of State Superior Court
overruled that decision
today, saying the Boy Scouts of America and its local
councils are "places
of accommodation" that "emphasize open membership" and
must adhere to
New Jersey's anti-discrimination law.
"<SNIP>
Boy Scouts spokesman Gregg Shields said an appeal will
be filed at the
state supreme court.
"The Boy Scouts of America has a right as a voluntary
association, to
teach youth the traditional values that it has taught
since 1910, and to
establish membership and leadership standards," said
Shields. "The Boy
Scouts of America is not a public accommodation. It's
a voluntary
association, and anyone who agrees with our principles
is welcome to
join."
<SNIP>
Last May, a federal court in San Diego ruled the
Scouts is not a business
and does not have to give a leadership post back to a
gay police officer
who was forced out.
And last month, Chicago settled a lawsuit by agreeing
to sever its ties to
scouting programs until the group accepts homosexuals
and stops requiring
a religious oath.
© Copyright 1998 The Associated Press
Jane Gallion
You gonna tar & feather me?
Oo eee oooo aa aa.
--Jane
Jane Gallion
Tracey Levin wrote:
> My bumper sticker says "Visualize No Liberals!"
> Don't you love it!?!
Yawn.
Kyle Wedin
ok, thanks for the tip to the AP story. Does anyone (probably someone with some knowledge
of law) know what "places of accomodation" and "emphasize open membership" means in legal
terms? It sounds as if the court argument is that BSA must follow the state law not
because it gets moeny from the government, but rather that it meets these two conditions.
(Of course, this is gleaned from the AP report, not the whole court record.) So, what do
these mean, exactly?
-Kyle
Patrick L. Humphrey
...ting tang, walla walla bing bang! ;-) (Hey, some of us are old enough to
remember _that_.) You'll have to wait until David gets through whining at my
employers -- you know, Rice University, hint, hint -- for employing someone
who utters opinions that David doesn't want to hear. Hell, in his
less-than-cogent worldview, I'm very pro-homosexual, too, for no other reason
than that I support the right of homosexuals to _not_ be beaten senseless for
no other reason than the gender of their preferred sexual partners. Never
mind that I was born heterosexual and have stayed that way all my life, never
mind my happy marriage to a farmer's daughter from South Dakota, or our
daughter, or our grandchildren -- nah, I'm probably in the closet, according
to David, because I dare to dispute _his_ addled hallucinations.
(Besides that, we're both fellow Illuminati. Better not display our secret
handshake in front of outsiders, and all that. :-)
--PLH, hey, Dave, just in case you've fallen asleep trying to understand what
I'm writing: you're an idiot. Hope this helps.
Wade Eric Bynum
In article <34FD0D...@swbell.net>,
Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>And the Boy Scouts is one of there groups chartered by Congress...the
>other two being the Girl Scouts and The Red Cross. The Boy Scouts use
>public lands, public buildings and public funds. Therefore, the Boy
>Scouts have no business excluding anyone from their ranks. They are not
>a private organization.
>
While I do not know the classification of The Boy Scouts,
just about any private organization can use public facilities and
recieve public funds.
--
Kcobra
(kco...@tam2000.tamu.edu) and (http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~kcobra/)
"I have been and always shall be your friend."
--Spock
Wade Eric Bynum
>filled error free source of info, but alas, it's the best we got).
>Anyway, they indicated this guy was an avowed homosexual who demanded
>his right to be boy scout leader. What concerned me is this guy sounds
>like someone with a chip on his shoulder and is trying to use the boy
>scouts to further his political/sexual philosophys. That isn't what the
>boyscouts should be about. If he's gay, fine. If he's gay, very vocal
>about it, and demands that he be embraced as a boyscout rolemodel for
>your kids, then I question the purity of his motives.
>
>
> -Clay
>
Which brings up another point. I seriously doubt we would
be seeing this uproar from the supporters of this guy, if
he was, say, a satanic minister trying to be a boy scout
leader.
Walter Eric Johnson
The Boy Scouts have the right to run their organization as they see fit.
They don't want gay scoutmasters and have every right to refuse to do
so.
Eric Johnson
Jason Saldana
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:24:07 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>Craig, the BSA is a private org.
>Homosexuality is immoral.
>And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
>conflicts with
>their nutty value system.
I think it's funny that you say leftist's value system is "nutty",
when YOUR value system is based on what is essentially a big huge book
of mythology.
-Jason
Jason Saldana
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 20:29:26 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>> > Homosexuality is immoral.
>>
>> On what basis?
>
> On the basis that God says so.
Hahahahahahahaha.
Does God talk to you regularly?
Also, what makes you think your God is everyone else's?
-Jason
Walter Eric Johnson
: => Of course, an openly gay male
: => recruiting kids for such an organization would be justifiably looked
: => upon as "highly suspect".
:
: Eh?
:
: Oh yeah, the ole homosexual=pedophile red herring.
Note that I didn't equate the two.
The homosexual male may not have the intention of molesting the boys,
but there is certainly a higher probability of him doing so,
whether intentionally or on the spur of the moment, than a heterosexual
male.
: Or would a openly heterosexual female recruiting for her boy scout troop
: also be "justifiably looked upon as 'highly suspect'"?
Yep. Just as it would be justifiably looked upon as "highly suspect" if
an adult male wished to operate a girl scout troop.
Eric Johnson
Walter Eric Johnson
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) (NOSPAMc...@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL) wrote:
: I don't think anyone denies the fact that private groups can regulate
: their membership based on sexual orientation if they choose. Since the
: Boy Scouts are a public organization, they have no such right.
Please provide real evidence that the Boy Scouts is a "public
organization". It might help to start with a definition of a
"public organization".
: And the BSA is public. Plus private groups cannot limit their membership
: on any criteria they choose. There are limitations.
Please list all private groups you can think of which cannot lawfully
exclude a gay adult from a leadership position within that group based
on the fact that he is gay.
Eric Johnson
El Goob (Gary W. Smith)
In some article, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
->What documents, teachings, etc. do you
->turn to for instruction and truth?
Personally I use the one that has common sense on the cover.
- goob (but i suppose weak minds need outside help) smith
Walter Eric Johnson
George R. Welch (grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu) wrote:
: In article <6dl0mo$51t$1...@news.tamu.edu>,: >
: >The Boy Scouts have the right to run their organization as they see fit.
: >They don't want gay scoutmasters and have every right to refuse to do so.
: Well, I used to think that too, but now I see that it is no
: longer true in New Jersey. Of course, you used to have to cook and camp
: to make Eagle. Things change.
That's why some people formed informal groups for their kids and
neighboring kids. The Boy Scouts lost much of my support when they
did away or minimized the outdoors portions. I have heard that they
returned somewhat to the outdoors. They lost more of my support when
they awarded L. Ron Hubbard (of scientology fame) an award for
humanitarianism. Before that, if a Boy Scout was trying to raise
money, I'd buy whatever he was selling (within reason), but no longer.
Eric Johnson
Walter Eric Johnson
: => : Or would a openly heterosexual female recruiting for her boy scout troop
: => : also be "justifiably looked upon as 'highly suspect'"?
: =>
: => Yep. Just as it would be justifiably looked upon as "highly suspect" if
: => an adult male wished to operate a girl scout troop.
:
: This is actually pretty funny, given the way the Boy Scouts works. Most
: of my Boy Scout training was taught by one of these "highly suspect" den
: mothers.
Are you sure you're not talking about Cub Scouts, another organization
altogether?
: Why, the BSA routinely left us little boys alone with these
: "highly suspect" women behind closed doors on a weekly basis. Looks like
: the BSA is one big sex cult!
I thought we were talking about Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts.
Eric Johnson
Walter Eric Johnson
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) (NOSPAMc...@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL) wrote:
: > Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
: > : I don't think anyone denies the fact that private groups can regulate
: > : their membership based on sexual orientation if they choose. Since the
: > : Boy Scouts are a public organization, they have no such right.
: >
: > Please provide real evidence that the Boy Scouts is a "public
: > organization".
: The ruling of the Appellate Division of State Superior Court of the State
: of New Jersey.
So all it takes is a single court anywhere in the U.S. to decide whether
an organization is public or private? Might as well make them all public
then because you can probably always find a court to declare an organization
public.
: > It might help to start with a definition of a
: > "public organization".
:
: From Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary:
: public ...known by, open to or available to most or all people.
I like that. "known by". That should cover a whole lot of
organizations. If enough people learn of the existence of your
organization, it automagically becomes "public"?
If you go by "open to" or "available to", it is obviously not
public since it excludes girls (I guess it still does) as well
as boys younger than a certain age (10 or so) and older than
a certain age. That pretty well cuts out most people from being
members.
: New Jersey has a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
: orientation. Thus in the State of New Jersey, the Boy Scouts of America
: cannot discrimiante against gays and lesbians.
The question still remains whether it applies to the Boy Scouts.
Eric Johnson
Jay Patrick Howard
Tracey Levin (trac...@swbell.net) wrote:
: their "queer" and, or athieistic constituients?
Wow...fishing with mis-spellings. Have we really sunk that low?
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:38:09 -0800, Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Boy Scouts are chartered by the Congress. The President serves as
>honorary chair. Many Boy Scout camps are located on public lands, and
>in many cases, scout troops are allowed to meet in school buildings and
>many troops are sponsered by government groups (i.e. police departments,
>sheriffs offices, military bases) Scouts use the public schools in
>order to recruit. Many scouting districts recieve funds from the United
>Way, although this has changed in recent years. The Austin UW received
>enough flack over the issue that now you must designate you funds to go
>to the BSA.
BSA is a private organization. It charges its members dues, it gets money from
donations and charitable organizations, and it charges money for admissions to
summer camps etc. Its earnings from the aforementionded are suffiecient to cover
its operating costs and alleviate the need for tax money.
BSA was founded - repeat "founded," not "lobbied for" - in the early 1900's
[both 1909 and 1911 spring to mind - but I'm not certain]. The very fact that
continues to cater only to heterosexual male believers in God is due to the
fact that it is a privately owned and funded organization. Were it public it
would have folded to pressure to admit athiests, girls, and homosexuals a long
time ago.
The United Way is a private organization. United Way reaps millions of dollars
from private and corporate donations. I doubt it nets and tax revenue. The fact
that United Way donates substantial funds to BSA does not render BSA a public
organization.
The reason that BSA participates in activities on public land is the same as the
reason that others participate in activities on public land: they want to and
they obtain permission.
I've yet to hear of a scout troop that is chrtered by a school or other public
institutuion. As far as I know, a troop must charter with a church or other
religious organization - but I could be wrong. Schools regularly donate use of
their facilities to community organizations - such as churches, support groups,
and scout troops. The fact that BSA also takes advantage to this is part of the
rule rather than an exception.
Recruiting in public schools is permitted for the same reasons that recruiting
for non-academic clubs such as, say, chess club is permitted. Administrators see
it as a posivive thing and let it pass.
-=Erik=-
http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu/
"He's got to find a doctor, a very special doctor/
Someone who can cure his mind/
Someone who knows Harry's kind."
Corporate Hack
On 5 Mar 1998 05:23:32 GMT, wej...@scully.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) wrote:
>: This is actually pretty funny, given the way the Boy Scouts works. Most
>: of my Boy Scout training was taught by one of these "highly suspect" den
>: mothers.
>
>Are you sure you're not talking about Cub Scouts, another organization
>altogether?
>[snip]
>I thought we were talking about Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts.
BSA encompasses Tiger Scouts, Cub Scouts, Weblos, Boy Scouts, multiple flavors
of Exploring, and Venture/Varsity crews.
Jay Patrick Howard
Tracey Levin (trac...@swbell.net) wrote:
: you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
: welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is
: politically incorrect.
If you read the Bible, you may discover God is not pro Pennicillin.
So is he against it? Absolutely not.
Though some would debate it, most people believe certain verses
specifically warn against homosexuality. Where in the Bible does God
condemn "big government" or welfare?
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:15:55 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>The problem here is two fold, homosexuals and atheists want laws which will
>require everyone to accept them, even private organizations. Secondly,
Why not?
Is it too much to ask people to overcome their bigotry towards such pissant
factors such as religious beliefs [or lack of] and sexual orientation?
Corporations - the lifeblood of this nation - certainly do not. Corporations -
not the liberals you despise so much - are responsible for the advancement of
rights protectoion for these groups of people you despise so much. They do it
for a simple reason: they make the company profitable on the average just as
much as God-fearing conservatives do.
Oh, that's right. This is about "_us_" and "_them_..."
>liberals want to eliminate groups like the BSA because they influence children
>toward faith in God, Traditional Family Values, and patriotism. All of these
Somehow, I suspect that you are linking the "draft dodgers" of the Vietnam-era
to liberalism. Study your history and you will begin to appreciate how
meaningless that war was to this nation's interests. Those who "dodged" that war
and were thus not being "patriotic" were following their conscious.
Read your bible a little more: it hardly advocates participation in war - which
amounts to murder.
>values are a threat to liberal institutions. A powerful faith in God may lead
>you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
>welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is politically
>incorrect.
Ah yes, allow the bible to argue for you. Big error. The bible is strong on
rhetoric and practically non-existant on logic/argumentation. Some of the things
named "sins" are arbitrary and involve no direct wronging of another.
Somehow, I doubt that God is concerned with human politics.
>Traditional Family Values place emphasis on God and normal family life, but
>not homosexuality, or the "gay" lifestyle. Patriotism is something liberals
>particularly despise. According to liberalism, patriotism is divisive, mean,
>and awful! Being proud of your country, heritage, faith, culture, and race
>are absolutely some of the most evil emotions a person can have unless he is
>an Indian, etc.
>So, it's time to bring down anything that will cause conflict with the liberal
>agenda.
It is time to put an end to centuries of religious fundamentalist control of
human events and move beyond endless bickering over petty, insignifigant things.
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 20:31:54 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Jane is a very pro-homosexual.
Is there a point to that statement? That is all the above is: a statement.
Getting tired of being ripped to shreds? If not, please continue to post - I
have yet to tire of criticizing your writings.
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 18:28:03 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Nguyen, we are not talking about "queer" little boys wanting to join the
>BSA.It is "queer" big boys who want to teach the children in the BSA!
>How many homosexual children under the age of 16 have you known?
You cannot get over it, can you?
You read a description of an individual, and hit the term "homosexual." You
seize up. You force everything good written about the individual and concentrate
on the incorrect stereotypes you have of homosexuals and immediately that person
becomes a clone of the evil, gay, petophile you hold in your closed mind.
I'll bet you haven't ever known a homosexual before. Believe it or not, most of
them are relatively normal people - but I imagine that you will choose not to
believe it. They have varying interests, occupations, and activities just like
all the other people in this world. Like heterosexuals, some of them are
"deviant" in ways carnal - but "deviant" heterosexuals outnumber "deviant"
homosexuals .
>What is really at stake here are the rights of private groups. Will they be
>overthrown by
>leftist do-gooders in the courts, or Congress who are trying to appease
>their "queer" and, or athieistic constituients?
>
>Private groups deserve to maintain their rights to limit membership based
>upon any criteria they happen to come up with. Public groups are different.
>
>Homosexuals and atheists will try to force the rest of us to accept them at
>all costs.
>But, of course, all they are doing is driving a wedge between the various
>groups involved.
Yes, just like those irritatingly persistent ethnic minorities of ~30 years ago,
those homosexuals and athiests ask us to judge them on their merits and not how
they behave in private.
I know that you might argue that it's "in their head," and that they have made
"choices," but aside from your unreasonable personal revulsion, what makes them
so terribly different that they earn your hatred?
Jay Patrick Howard
Craig K. Gowens wrote:
> No, I have a real problem with people that view the Bible as 1) a
> completely factual historical text and 2) a legally binding word of
> law. The Bible was authored by people, not God. People throughout
> time have oppressed and "hated" other groups of people for qualities
> they found undesirable. Many of these impressions ended up in the
> Bible. For that reason the Bible cannot be looked to as a perfect
> work. The Bible has passages that conflict other passages.
At the risk of getting totally off topic...
It would be silly to view the entire Bible as a "historical text".
Different books exhibit different literary styles, only some of which
recount history. There are books of poems, personal letters, listings of
laws, etc. Each must be viewed in context, i.e. don't read history as
poetry, or poetry as history, etc.
It would also be silly to view the Bible as legally binding to all
persons. We don't live in a theocracy. 'Nuff said.
As for the authorship, that's up for discussion. Certainly it was the
hands of men that penned the actual text, but couldn't their words have
been inspired by God? This statement defies proof, of course, but then
again it also defies disproof. *shrug*
As for perfection...just out of curiosity, what passages were you
referring to that conflict? There are also some who believe that, despite
textual flaws, the overall "theme" of the Bible is unmistakable and
therefore "perfect". Not sure I'm one of them (perhaps preferring the
traditional view of inerrancy), but this view is at least out there.
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:17:39 -0600,
NOSPAMc...@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL (Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of
the SWC)) wrote:
>
>> What is really at stake here are the rights of private groups.
>
>I don't think anyone denies the fact that private groups can regulate
>their membership based on sexual orientation if they choose. Since the
>Boy Scouts are a public organization, they have no such right.
BSA is a private organization. Understand that.
Were it not, it would have "cracked" long ago and would be a shadow of its
current self.
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:24:07 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
>nothing worth repeating.
Nothing of yours is worth repeating, but I do it for clarity's sake and so that
it will be seen just how fallacious it all is.
>
>Craig, the BSA is a private org.
...One of the few things you have gotten right.
>Homosexuality is immoral.
Where do you get that? Your precious bible? The bible claims that even thinking
about sex is immoral. About 99.999999% of the sex that goes on could be called
"immoral." Sex is "morally" permissable under such narrow circumstances that
it's a wonder that God doesn't have a legal staff to examine every instance of
it.
>And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
>conflicts with
Yeah - "leftists." Politics really is just a bar graph for you isn't it?
>their nutty value system. Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
>men anyway"!
The bible was written by men. This is a fact acknowledged by religious scholars
worldwide. What is up for debate is their "inspiration."
Convince me. Argue everyhting coantained within in the bible to a logical
conclusion. Explain why Christianity is _the_ religion when there are so many
others out there competing for my attention.
>HA! How funny!
HA! How funny!
>My bumper sticker says "Visualize No Liberals!"
>Don't you love it!?!
Yeah... WHAT DOES IT MEAN???
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 20:29:26 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> > Homosexuality is immoral.
>>
>> On what basis?
>
> On the basis that God says so. What documents, teachings, etc. do you
>turn to for instruction and truth?
I turn to my gift of a sense of rationality and I turn to brilliant pieces of
_argumentation_ written by philosophers - not theologians. I read a piece and I
think. It makes me think. Reading the bible is often like being force-fed. You
have a gun pointed at you [the potential for a painful afterlife] and then are
told to really and truly [ad nof your own free will!!] believe what you have
been told.
Theology so rarely offers truth. Mathematics, logic, and science offer truth.
Unless you start arguing the nature of epistemology, you always need to have 2 +
2 to equal 4 if you're to get anything useful done. Theology cannot prove its
claims in the manner that the aforementioned fields can.
>
> Well, it's nice of you to admit your bias!
<snicker>
Jay Patrick Howard
Corporate Hack (dr.fei...@DELETETHIS.mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Where do you get that? Your precious bible? The bible claims that even
: thinking about sex is immoral.
Actually it claims lust is immoral - a distinction could be made between
lust and simply "thinking about sex". Certainly the author of the Song of
Songs had sex on his mind...or at least, an accute appreciation of his
bride's body. *shrug*
Corporate Hack
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:15:55 -0600, Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
>welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is politically
>incorrect.
Interestingly enough, theocracies create some of the largest governments in
existence. Look at Iran: There are clerics in addition to agencies on the
payroll. Interpretation of religious law is a huge industry.
How few citizens of Vatican City are _not_ involved with the papacy [and, thus,
the government]?
Jane Gallion
> >> Jane is a very pro-homosexual.
>
> >You gonna tar & feather me?
>
> >Oo eee oooo aa aa.
>
> ...ting tang, walla walla bing bang! ;-)
Never
> mind that I was born heterosexual and have stayed that way all my life, never
> mind my happy marriage to a farmer's daughter from South Dakota, or our
> daughter, or our grandchildren -- nah, I'm probably in the closet, according
> to David, because I dare to dispute _his_ addled hallucinations.
Must be an awfully Big Ole Closet. I frequently wonder how this critter, frothing
about Family as it does, can fault me for being pro-my gay daughter. Chapter
eleventy million of 'That's Different.' Whatever hat it's wearing this week, it's
still an idiot.
> (Besides that, we're both fellow Illuminati. Better not display our secret
> handshake in front of outsiders, and all that. :-)
You *know* you weren't supposed to say that in public. Sheesh!
--Jane
Conan The Librarian
In article <34FE0E05...@swbell.net>, Tracey Levin
<trac...@swbell.net> writes:
> Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
>
>> Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> > Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
>> > nothing worth repeating.
>> >
>> > Craig, the BSA is a private org.
>>
>> The Court ruling in New Jersey disagrees. The court's opinion is what
>> counts, not yours.
>
> New Jersey is but one court. California did not force the BSA to accept homosexual
> Scout Masters. The BSA is a private org, but homosexual adult males want to
> become Scout Masters for some reason.
Probably for the same reason that hetero males want to coach
girls sports teams.
>> > Homosexuality is immoral.
>>
>> On what basis?
>
> On the basis that God says so. What documents, teachings, etc. do you
> turn to for instruction and truth?
Some of us are capable of using reason as opposed to blindly
following the bible.
>> > And, leftists like yourself quote scripture until they come to a verse that
>> > conflicts with
>> > their nutty value system.
>>
>> The same is true of rightist bigots. The Bible was used to justify slavery
>> of blacks for God's sake.
>
> Well, it's nice of you to admit your bias!
It's nice of you to dodge the point (as usual).
>> > Then they claim that "well, the Bible was written by
>> > men anyway"!
>> > HA! How funny!
>> Ever looked up the definition of liberal? As Bill Maher once joked, when
>> you see the definition of liberal, its things you want to be, but people
>> have so corrupted its bieng a bad word. To be liberal is to be tolerant,
>> open-minded and in favor of progress. (I find it very ironic that as I
>> write this watching Garth Brooks: Ireland and Back special on TV, the
>> song he's singing is We Shall be Free, a song about tolerance and open-
>> mindedness.)
>
> It's very funny how just today, we see "liberals" being very intolerant! And,
> certainly they are not at all "openminded"!
> For if they were, they would not be trying to force their value system on the
> Boy Scouts of America!
Yeah, I know what you mean. And those "liberal Blacks" were awfully
intolerant for trying to force whites to accept them.
> Bill Maher is often confused.
And you're still an idiot.
Chuck Vance
Conan The Librarian
In article <34FE0E99...@swbell.net>, Tracey Levin
<trac...@swbell.net> writes:
> Jane Gallion wrote:
>
>> Heidi Halstead wrote:
>> >
>> > Tracey Levin wrote:
>>
>> > You are one ignorant person.
>>
>> Heidi, Tracy/David is *several* ignorant people. <ahem>
>>
>> --Jane
>
> Jane is a very pro-homosexual.
And your point is?
Chuck Vance
Conan The Librarian
In article <34FDFCCB...@swbell.net>, Tracey Levin
<trac...@swbell.net> writes:
> Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hmm. I used to be a Boy Scout. Nearly all of our campouts were on
>> private land, not public land. Our meetings took place in a Methodist
>> Church. Of course, we did travel on public roadways to get where we
>> are going, but that would not make the Boy Scouts a public organization.
>>
>> FWIW, there are plenty of people who form their own local groups for
>> kids who want to go camping without the Boy Scouts. There is nothing
>> to keep any gay man who wants to be a scout leader from recruiting his
>> own non-BSA group for such purposes. Of course, an openly gay male
>> recruiting kids for such an organization would be justifiably looked
>> upon as "highly suspect".
>>
>> Eric Johnson
>
> Hi Eric!
>
> The problem here is two fold, homosexuals and atheists want laws which will
> require everyone to accept them, even private organizations.
Heavens. The next thing you know, blacks will be asking to
sit in the front of the bus.
Can't have that, can we?
> Secondly,
> liberals want to eliminate groups like the BSA because they influence children
> toward faith in God, Traditional Family Values, and patriotism.
Oooops ... you found out. Now we'll have to kill you.
> All of these
> values are a threat to liberal institutions. A powerful faith in God may lead
> you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
> welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is politically
> incorrect.
Ah, so now you presume to speak for god on these matters?
Funny, but I don't see an omniscient, all-powerful god as being
concerned with "political correctness" in the least.
> Traditional Family Values place emphasis on God and normal family life, but
> not homosexuality, or the "gay" lifestyle.
Define "gay lifestyle".
> Patriotism is something liberals
> particularly despise. According to liberalism, patriotism is divisive, mean,
> and awful! Being proud of your country, heritage, faith, culture, and race
> are absolutely some of the most evil emotions a person can have unless he is
> an Indian, etc.
Friends, this is what happens when you get your "facts" from Rush
Limbaugh.
Chuck Vance
Donald A. Friedel Jr.
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
>
>
> In light of the teacher and that 13 year old, maybe the BSA should reconsider
> their stance on allowing women scoutmasters. That has as much basis as a
> ban on homosexual males. Its also worth noting the GSA to my knowledge does
> not discriminate against male scoutmasters or gay or lesbian scoutmasters
> for that matter.
>
I would disagree slightly with this comment. First of all, they are two
completely different organizations, with widely varied goals, hence comparisons
are really not supportable.. Secondly, when my wife and daughter were involved
with the GSA, I would occasionally help out in areas where I had more expertise
than my wife, and I received a lot of resistance from the organization to be
involved. If there is not a proscribed limitation on males in the GSA, there is
certainly an undercurrent of anti-male attitude. To be fair, I think some
caution should be expected in any of these organizations, regardless of the
leader and his/her reputation, etc. For the protection of the kids and the
adults, I think any organization that has interaction should have strict
guidelines, like never having an outing with only one adult, etc. Granted you
could have two people abusing the kids together, but at least you lessen the
odds.
don
Jeff Mohler
> > Hmm. I used to be a Boy Scout. Nearly all of our campouts were on
> > private land, not public land. Our meetings took place in a Methodist
> > Church. Of course, we did travel on public roadways to get where we
> > are going, but that would not make the Boy Scouts a public organization.
>
> The problem here is two fold, homosexuals and atheists want laws which will
> require everyone to accept them, even private organizations. Secondly,
> liberals want to eliminate groups like the BSA because they influence children
> toward faith in God, Traditional Family Values, and patriotism.
Now..damnit. I remember when I was in the BSA, and it was fun.
Nobody preached to me, nobody made me feel like my parents were 'wrong' in how
they
brought me up..nothing.
Why cant fun things be FUN.
The only people stirring the controversy are the ones who dont deal with the
children anyway.
There are things that I learned in the Scouts, that I use very often..not quite
ona daily basis, but
the fact I was exposed to not only basic first aid, but advanced first aid, the
proper use of dangerous
tools (expaned from axe/knife handling), I can camp out, build a fire, and cook a
pretty damn good meal
without modern assistance other than a match..one match.
The adult in us wants to protect our children from dangerous "things", but how
much do you really think
you can shelter your children without having a nagative impact?
Im not looking to start a flamewar, and im not going to beigin my existance in
this group(s) with personal attacks.
Just think for a few minutes what you did as a child..belonging is fun. Teching
exclusion is not, it feels un-natural. Children have a built in sense of right
and wrong. Encourage them to ask questions about what confuses them, or what
seems wrong to them. We dont need to sterilize thier environment for them.
L...@lol.lol
> Jane Gallion <cha...@io.com> writes:
You gonna tar & feather me?
Oo eee oooo aa aa.
--Jane
------------------------------------------
LOL
Tracey
Jane Gallion wrote:
>
> tick wrote:
> >
> > In article <34FD7552...@acs.tamu.edu>, Clay Maugans
> > <cbm...@acs.tamu.edu> wrote:
> If he's gay, very vocal
> > > about it, and demands that he be embraced as a boyscout rolemodel for
> > > your kids, then I question the purity of his motives.
>
> > Interesting take Clay. To summarize, the boy scouts should not be
> > able to exclude somebody because he's gay, but exclusion because he's
> > a jerk is just fine. I can agree with that.
>
> Fr shirr. Precedent wd then allow us to eject Tracy/David & possibly Ronzone
> from this ng. But durn! No more First Amendment. Too big a price to pay.
>
> --Jane
Congrats! You are finally waking up! Soon, you'll be listening
to Rush Limbaugh, and throwing darts at a picture of Pat Ireland!
Tracey
Max wrote:
This is a "David" styled poke:
"Mommy, why does my Scout Master wear pink highheels when we go
camping?"
Clay Maugans
Wade Eric Bynum wrote:
> In article <34FD7552...@acs.tamu.edu>,
> Clay Maugans <cbm...@acs.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >I read a little about this in the paper (oh, what a wonderful fact
> >filled error free source of info, but alas, it's the best we got).
> >Anyway, they indicated this guy was an avowed homosexual who demanded
> >his right to be boy scout leader. What concerned me is this guy sounds
> >like someone with a chip on his shoulder and is trying to use the boy
> >scouts to further his political/sexual philosophys. That isn't what the
> >boyscouts should be about. If he's gay, fine. If he's gay, very vocal
> >about it, and demands that he be embraced as a boyscout rolemodel for
> >your kids, then I question the purity of his motives.
> >
> >Just MHO.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
>
> Which brings up another point. I seriously doubt we would
> be seeing this uproar from the supporters of this guy, if
> he was, say, a satanic minister trying to be a boy scout
> leader.
>
> --
I respectfully disagree.
-Clay
elizabe...@sematech.org
In article <6dkeua$har$2...@news.tamu.edu>,
bjc...@scully.tamu.edu (Benjamin Justin Cain) wrote:
>
> Tracey Levin (trac...@swbell.net) wrote:
> :
> : GO BOY SCOUTS GO!
>
> May your catches be many and large.
And may human beings one day set foot on the moon.
Elizabeth "retroactively blessed" Greer
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Clayton Colwell
Walter Eric Johnson (wej...@scully.tamu.edu) wrote:
: The homosexual male may not have the intention of molesting the boys,
: but there is certainly a higher probability of him doing so,
: whether intentionally or on the spur of the moment, than a heterosexual
: male.
Might I ask how someone inadvertently molests another person?
I feel sorry for bisexuals: everyone thinks they'll be molesting
*everybody*.
: : Or would a openly heterosexual female recruiting for her boy scout troop
: : also be "justifiably looked upon as 'highly suspect'"?
: Yep. Just as it would be justifiably looked upon as "highly suspect" if
: an adult male wished to operate a girl scout troop.
Did you have *any* Den Mothers in your troop? Openly heterosexual
women did incredible amounts of support work during the time I
was in the Cub Scouts, and no one fussed over whether the kids'd
be dragged over to the bedroom for a cozy "chat".
Mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Mark Pruett
>On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:38:09 -0800, Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>BSA is a private organization. It charges its members dues, it gets money from
>donations and charitable organizations, and it charges money for admissions to
>summer camps etc. Its earnings from the aforementionded are suffiecient to cover
>its operating costs and alleviate the need for tax money.
>
>BSA was founded - repeat "founded," not "lobbied for" - in the early 1900's
>[both 1909 and 1911 spring to mind - but I'm not certain]. The very fact that
>continues to cater only to heterosexual male believers in God is due to the
>fact that it is a privately owned and funded organization. Were it public it
>would have folded to pressure to admit athiests, girls, and homosexuals a long
>time ago.
>
Bravo! The other thing that people are missing in this argument is
that the very parts of BSA that the gay and atheist groups are so
vehemently decrying are the Scout Oath and Law. IMO as an Eagle
Scout, these are what makes BSA what it is. Without it, it'd be
another group of folks who like to do outdoors stuff. A large part of
the entire reason for the BSA is the indoctrination in the Oath and
Law. If you don't want to believe that/live by that/put up with that,
then don't join! I do, so I joined and got Eagle.
>The United Way is a private organization. United Way reaps millions of dollars
>from private and corporate donations. I doubt it nets and tax revenue. The fact
>that United Way donates substantial funds to BSA does not render BSA a public
>organization.
>
>The reason that BSA participates in activities on public land is the same as the
>reason that others participate in activities on public land: they want to and
>they obtain permission.
>
Sure- what's different from a Scout troop going on a campout in Garner
State Park, and a group from a dorm?
>I've yet to hear of a scout troop that is chrtered by a school or other public
>institutuion. As far as I know, a troop must charter with a church or other
>religious organization - but I could be wrong. Schools regularly donate use of
>their facilities to community organizations - such as churches, support groups,
>and scout troops. The fact that BSA also takes advantage to this is part of the
>rule rather than an exception.
>
Generally speaking, it's by some sort of organization- companies,
churches, fire departments, VFW halls, DAV chapters, etc.. My troop
was chartered by the local Volunteer fire department, and for a time
in college, I was involved with one chartered by a local DAV chapter.
Even the volunteer fire department isn't exactly an arm of the
government- in the sense that these other people are saying.
>Recruiting in public schools is permitted for the same reasons that recruiting
>for non-academic clubs such as, say, chess club is permitted. Administrators see
>it as a posivive thing and let it pass.
>
I remember being recruited for several different leagues of pee-wee
football, baseball, basketball, soccer, Boy Scouts, Campfire
Girls/Boys, etc... and being solicited by the Troll Book Club company
as well! I don't think that BSA has anywhere near a lock on the
at-school recruitment/marketing business.
>
>-=Erik=-
>http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu/
>"He's got to find a doctor, a very special doctor/
>Someone who can cure his mind/
>Someone who knows Harry's kind."
Mark Pruett
TAMU Class of '95
mpr...@nospam.relinc.com
(take the nospam out for replies)
Bud
Tracey Levin <trac...@swbell.net> wrote in article
<34FDF193...@swbell.net>...
>
> What is really at stake here are the rights of private groups. Will they
be
> overthrown by
> leftist do-gooders in the courts, or Congress who are trying to appease
> their "queer" and, or athieistic constituients?
>
> Private groups deserve to maintain their rights to limit membership based
> upon any criteria they happen to come up with. Public groups are
different.
>
I have no problem with a private organization limiting its membership as
long as they do not try to claim tax-exempt status -- something the Boys
Scouts do. They can't have it both ways.
Bud
>
>
> The problem here is two fold, homosexuals and atheists want laws which
will
> require everyone to accept them, even private organizations. Secondly,
> liberals want to eliminate groups like the BSA because they influence
children
these
> values are a threat to liberal institutions. A powerful faith in God may
lead
> you to read his word in the Bible. You may discover that God is not pro
> welfare, pro big government, nor pro homosexual, therefore, God is
politically
> incorrect.
Tracey/David, you should be the last person to talk about what God does and
doesn't want since it is obvious from your posts you have no clue about
God! I suspect that you only read the Bible to find those selected verses
that support your warped sense of values and hatred towards others. If I
was you, I would hope and prayer that God doesn't "do unto you as you do
unto others."
Bud
>
> Jane Gallion wrote:
>
> > Heidi, Tracy/David is *several* ignorant people. <ahem>
> >
> > --Jane
>
> Jane is a very pro-homosexual.
>
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
and
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Tracey/David, you should try following the words of Jesus. You might find
it a welcome change from the hatred, bigoty and ignorance you normally
embrace.
Bud
Walter Eric Johnson <wej...@scully.tamu.edu> wrote in article
<6dlcsk$fcl$2...@news.tamu.edu>...
> Jason E Pierce (jpi...@cs.tamu.edu) wrote:
> : Why, the BSA routinely left us little boys alone with these
> : "highly suspect" women behind closed doors on a weekly basis. Looks
like
> : the BSA is one big sex cult!
>
> I thought we were talking about Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts.
>
The Cub Scout is a part of the Boy Scouts.
Bud
Tracey <trac...@swbell.net> wrote in article <34FEC5...@swbell.net>...
you start spouting even more disfunctional personalities.
Beatriz Nguyen
Tracey Levin wrote:
>> It also argues why Baden-Powell would likely not have
>> supported the exclusion of gays and lesbians from scouting
>> programs.
>
> Ahh, thinking for the dead now. Very convincing.
The process is called "rational thought", of which you may
not necessarily be capable.
Tracey Levin wrote:
> Beatriz Nguyen wrote:
> Nguyen, we are not talking about "queer" little boys wanting to join the
> BSA.It is "queer" big boys who want to teach the children in the BSA!
> How many homosexual children under the age of 16 have you known?
Levin, I could answer that, but the number I have known is not
so relevant. What is relevant is that homosexual people
16 and above were once "children under the age of 16". This
is obvious, but appears to require stating.
Levin! You had no response, not even a denial, to the
very likely possibility that Baden-Powell was homosexual.
What's the matter, Levin!
Chris Wales
Have to get this in. Jason, all of your opinions should be discredited
anyway because of where you go to school. hehe
Jason E Pierce wrote in message <6dl4t7$7s6$1...@news.tamu.edu>...
>Walter Eric Johnson (wej...@scully.tamu.edu) sez:
>=> Jason E Pierce (jpi...@cs.tamu.edu) wrote:
>=> : Or would a openly heterosexual female recruiting for her boy scout
troop
>=> : also be "justifiably looked upon as 'highly suspect'"?
>=>
>=> Yep. Just as it would be justifiably looked upon as "highly suspect" if
>=> an adult male wished to operate a girl scout troop.
>
>This is actually pretty funny, given the way the Boy Scouts works. Most
>of my Boy Scout training was taught by one of these "highly suspect" den
>mothers. Why, the BSA routinely left us little boys alone with these
>"highly suspect" women behind closed doors on a weekly basis. Looks like
>the BSA is one big sex cult!
>
> . ...
> :ason :.:ierce
> .' :
> jpi...@tamu.edu
Pink Chicken
> Have to get this in. Jason, all of your opinions should be discredited
> anyway because of where you go to school. hehe
> Jason E Pierce wrote in message <6dl4t7$7s6$1...@news.tamu.edu>...
> >Walter Eric Johnson (wej...@scully.tamu.edu) sez:
> >=> Jason E Pierce (jpi...@cs.tamu.edu) wrote:
I love the irony of it all. ;)
Callie
Beatriz Nguyen
Earlier someone used the multi-pronoun "she/he/it/they"
to refer to "Tracey", to allow for various possibilities.
To save space and time, I suggest this be abbreviated as
s/h/i/t, or simply, shit.
I dislike characterizing political opinion as being
on a one-dimensional spectrum from "liberal/left" to
"extreme conservative/right". But suspending that
dislike for a moment:
I wonder if shit is actually a liberal or moderate,
masquerading as a right-winger. If so, I think
shit is doing a really good job for the liberal
or moderate cause, by suggesting (accurately IMO)
that people on the extreme right are basically just
bad and mean. Please, do continue!
Whether or not shit is a liberal or moderate, I think
shit is serving the left well, and hurting the right.
I hope shit will do even more, such as run for office!
I may even consider contributing to shit's political
campaign, so that shit can buy more airtime!
Lane Wimberley
David masquerading as Tracey Levin wrote:
> What the BSA needs to do is cite the fact that Planned Parenthood is a
> private company that gets zillions of Federal tax dollars each and
> every year!
HA HA HA!!! Yikes! Man, if you aren't David (which of course
you are, but hypothetically speaking, if you aren't) you
really should be!
So, Davey, does Planned Parenthood discriminate against homosexuals
or non-Christians? I mean, that is the question here, isn't it?
God, what a doofus you are!
> And, in some public school districts, Planned Parenthood
> representatives hand out information to the students informing them of
> services offered by Planned Parenthood.
Not that this is relevent, but I suppose you have evidence of this...?
> Isn't this an example of a
> private company making use of public facilities?
> Are they are doing this to enhance their bottom line?
> Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other business in
> the country.
> Therefore, if the private org. known as Planned Parenthood, who gets
> many millions in TAX DOLLARS can make use of public facilities, then
> so can any other private company / organization including the Boy
> Scouts of America.
Oy.
> Listen closely and you'll hear liberals squealing about now.
Yeah, David, I'm squeelin'.
--
Lane Wimberley
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation
Austin, TX
Chris Wales
The 13 year old and his teacher has a lot less of a basis (Just look at the
freaking statistics) as a gay person. Just relating to frequency of
occurrences between the two. No opinion on the actual subject matter.
Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote in message ...
>>
>In light of the teacher and that 13 year old, maybe the BSA should
reconsider
>their stance on allowing women scoutmasters. That has as much basis as a
>ban on homosexual males. Its also worth noting the GSA to my knowledge does
>not discriminate against male scoutmasters or gay or lesbian scoutmasters
>for that matter.
>
>
> Hook'em Horns
>
>
>University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
>http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/
>
>"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00
>curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
> --Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game
>
>"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
>known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
>it to his team's advantage."
> --"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
> gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU
The Lord Thy GOD
BLASPHEMY
REPENT OR BE CAST INTO THE EVERLASTING FIRES OF HADES
Corporate Hack
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:04:26 GMT, mpr...@nospam.relinc.com (Mark Pruett) wrote:
>Bravo! The other thing that people are missing in this argument is
>that the very parts of BSA that the gay and atheist groups are so
>vehemently decrying are the Scout Oath and Law. IMO as an Eagle
>Scout, these are what makes BSA what it is. Without it, it'd be
>another group of folks who like to do outdoors stuff. A large part of
Certainly. BSA is, effectively, about improving the very lives of its members.
Despite what some decry, I do not think the outdoors program as signifigant as
the self-enrichment.
I really don't see why New Jersey saw it as a "public" organization. If it
doesn't get tax revenue, how is it "public?"
Of course, I don't see the reason for excluding homosexuals from participating.
It doesn't violate any fundamental principle of BSA to permit them to
participate. Athiests would be stretch - notably a few words in both the scout
law and pledge. Although, the religious element of BSA - that I have witnessed -
is so small a percentage of what they do...
>the entire reason for the BSA is the indoctrination in the Oath and
>Law. If you don't want to believe that/live by that/put up with that,
>then don't join! I do, so I joined and got Eagle.
Same here. 'Twas an odd date - 02-29-96...
>Generally speaking, it's by some sort of organization- companies,
>churches, fire departments, VFW halls, DAV chapters, etc.. My troop
>was chartered by the local Volunteer fire department, and for a time
>in college, I was involved with one chartered by a local DAV chapter.
>Even the volunteer fire department isn't exactly an arm of the
>government- in the sense that these other people are saying.
I've yet to hear of that - I'm glad I tacked on the disclaimer.
tick
In article <34FDF8...@io.com>, cha...@io.com wrote:
> tick wrote:
> > Interesting take Clay. To summarize, the boy scouts should not be
> > able to exclude somebody because he's gay, but exclusion because he's
> > a jerk is just fine. I can agree with that.
>
> Fr shirr. Precedent wd then allow us to eject Tracy/David & possibly Ronzone
> from this ng. But durn! No more First Amendment. Too big a price to pay.
>
No I think there is a significant difference between excluding someone
from making their voice heard in a public forum and working the scout master
gig. In order to work & teach effectively you have to be able to play well
with others.......wait! That may be poor choice of phrasing in this
particularly inuendo heavy conversation. Nonetheless, I'm strongly in
favor of the right not to hire somebody because of a socially abrasive
style persona. That or pathological stupidity would be logical
reasons not to hire Tracy/David, as opposed to the fact that their
ideology is unacceptable.
-tick
Pink Chicken
The Lord Thy GOD wrote:
> THOU DOST COMMIT
> BLASPHEMY
>
> REPENT OR BE CAST INTO THE EVERLASTING FIRES OF HADES
I think you mixed up your Christian and Mythological motifs there.
--
*************************************************************
Callie ----> Me
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Chacun devrait savoir l'amour d'une boisson givrée.
Jeder sollte die Liebe eines eisigen Getränkes kennen.
Cada uno debe saber el amante de una bebida escarchada.
"If a Shmoo has big feet (B) and produces little footed (b) Shmoos,
what is the possible genotype of the Shmoo?" -actual test question.
Corporate Hack
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:30:17 -0600, Tracey <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>Congrats! You are finally waking up! Soon, you'll be listening
>to Rush Limbaugh, and throwing darts at a picture of Pat Ireland!
No one "wakes up" to your bizzare form of hatred, bigotry, and ignorance; they
close their mind to everything but your twisted ideals.
Corporate Hack
On 5 Mar 1998 01:25:23 -0600, jho...@cs.utexas.edu (Jay Patrick Howard) wrote:
>Actually it claims lust is immoral - a distinction could be made between
>lust and simply "thinking about sex". Certainly the author of the Song of
The religious fundamentalists can draw that line mighty narrow.