Bashing the Boy Scouts

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

are we? we don't allow a teacher to teach that blacks are inferior in public schools do we? i mean after all, he has every right its freedom its public its equal access

government subsidizing discrimination is the truely dangerous thing, and its sad that you can't see it.

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

A proper analogy would be denying equal access to a group based on political beliefs (or any belief, for that matter).

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

I don't oppose their right to believe what they want to believe, or say what they want to say. I've already said that. But that doesn't mean that I like what they say or do. And to that end, I wish bad things on their organization.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

are we? we don't allow a teacher to teach that blacks are inferior in public schools do we? i mean after all, he has every right its freedom its public its equal access

government subsidizing discrimination is the truely dangerous thing, and its sad that you can't see it.

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

A proper analogy would be denying equal access to a group based on political beliefs (or any belief, for that matter).

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

I don't oppose their right to believe what they want to believe, or say what they want to say. I've already said that. But that doesn't mean that I like what they say or do. And to that end, I wish bad things on their organization.

The thing is, they do not preach their beliefs outside their org. They simply do not allow gays.

The rational response is, as someone else already said, that gays refuse to allow Scouts.

The irrational response is to try and have their freedoms taken away and, in doing so, make whatever ideas and speech society finds unpopular or offensive a target for limitiation of freedoms and rights.

How is this ANY different from the communist witch hunts of the 1950s?

 

[0roo0roo]

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

the line between employment and subsidizing? not much. its public monies used to finance an individual or group. your reasoning, is nothing if not pathetic.

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

wrong you failed. they have every right to believe in discrimination. AS LONG AS ITS NOT PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED! they have no right to public money. to pretend so is to be beyond reason.

its beyond simple. take public hand outs, abide by government antidescrimination laws. if laws are not your thing, don't take the hand out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

are we? we don't allow a teacher to teach that blacks are inferior in public schools do we? i mean after all, he has every right its freedom its public its equal access

government subsidizing discrimination is the truely dangerous thing, and its sad that you can't see it.

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

A proper analogy would be denying equal access to a group based on political beliefs (or any belief, for that matter).

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

I don't oppose their right to believe what they want to believe, or say what they want to say. I've already said that. But that doesn't mean that I like what they say or do. And to that end, I wish bad things on their organization.

I am really having trouble with this. It seems you want to destroy anything or anyone who doesn't accept you. Tolerence is one thing, but if they don't welcome you with open arms, destroy them. I have a great problem with that attitude. No one has to accept me. I have no right to get in their face. If the Sons of Italy don't want me because I am not Italian, I am not going to cry and wail.

If the Boy Scouts went out and actively try to ban Gays from gathering, or attacked them with lawyers to keep them from associating with themselves or others not connected with their organization then I could understand. This is not the case.

The Scouts have done a lot of good, and although I have supported the ACLU in many things, I wonder if I may have been wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Was this always in OT ?

No - it was moved from P&N

CsG

 

[Zebo]

Why not an eye for an eye? Since the BSA doesnt allow gays, how about the Gays dont allow Boy Scouts? problem solved.

 

[Train]

FYI, Boy Scouts dont receive and public funding, they are 100% privately supported. Even the United Way doesnt support them anymore, having dropped the scouts over 10 years ago. The scouts have been doing just fine ever since.

Because something can exist or function on a military base does not in any way constitute public subsidation. The scout troops that are on a Military base are usually there because most of the scouts parents are on the base as well. There are also churches on Military bases, should we kick them off too? The churches are there because people on the base attend them. You can also find McDonalds', Burger King's, Taco Bell's, Bars, Bowling Alleys, Electronics stores, Auto shops, movie theatres, Liquor stores, anbd even the mother of all evils, tobacco outlet stores, on Military bases, do you consider all of that "public subsidation"? I dont think so. Military bases are for the most part like any other town in America, its citizens can do as they please, they raise thier children as they wish, and may have any type of activity that they want to have for thier kids. Taking away a bases right to have a scout troop wouldf be like telling a town that they cant have a little league baseball team.

I feel good knowing that the ACLU's stance doesnt represent the ideals of most gays. I have a lot of gay friends, some of them were even scouts themselves. I dont think any of them would wish the scouts to be wiped out, the ACLU is just making an issue out of nothing, which seems to be what they do best lately.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Train
There are also churches on Military bases, should we kick them off too? The churches are there because people on the base attend them.

Now you've done it... I'm sure we'll be hearing about that next.

CsG

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Train
There are also churches on Military bases, should we kick them off too? The churches are there because people on the base attend them.

Now you've done it... I'm sure we'll be hearing about that next.

CsG

All religions are represented equally at those churches.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

the line between employment and subsidizing? not much. its public monies used to finance an individual or group. your reasoning, is nothing if not pathetic.

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

wrong you failed. they have every right to believe in discrimination. AS LONG AS ITS NOT PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED! they have no right to public money. to pretend so is to be beyond reason.

its beyond simple. take public hand outs, abide by government antidescrimination laws. if laws are not your thing, don't take the hand out.

The use of public facilities is not taking "hand outs." Every individual involved in the BSA pays their taxes and deserves equal access to public facilities.

I agree that the BSA should not receive public funds... they are a private org. No private org should be entitled to public funds. BUT, they are entitled to use public parks and facilities just like EVERYONE ELSE. Their members paid for those facilities just as much as you and I have.

Again, you are having a difficult time understanding exactly what "subsidize" means. The equal access to public parks and facilities is NOT subsidizing. It is freedom to use what we all (including the members of the BSA) paid for.

 

[thomsbrain]

I'll bet you Libs will be glad to see that the ACLU is continuing it's 20 year vendetta against the Scouts. Don't we all feel better off now?

yes. yes, i do.

but i think it's important that you actually pay attention to what's happening and not the rhetoric surrounding it. the ACLU is basically trying to prevent tax dollars from supporting a religous organization, and that's the morally RIGHT thing to do. and yeah, they might be choosing this particular target because they have it out for an organization that openly discriminates, but i don't care who the organization is if they're religous and trying to use public services or support. Mr. Pakinstani Immigrant shouldn't have to support them. And neither should Mr. Gay American. sorry, but just because the kiddies will have to pay for their own Jamboree this year doesn't mean you have the moral high ground.

i was a scout before i was old enough to understand their political agenda and think for myself. we held OUR regional jamborees at a neutral convention center that was paid for by selling tickets to the jamboree and other fundraisers. OMG! it was terrible!

oh wait, it wasn't. all the little kiddies got to run their pineword derbys and pan for "gold" just the same. and no jewish people had to pay for it. imagine that.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i don't get why you have to believe in god to join their organization. when i have kids, i will tell them about other people's beliefs, and also my beliefs, and allow them to choose their religious beliefs

You have to believe in God to join their organization because the original founders of The Boyscouts built it around a strong faith in God. I don't see why an Athiest doesn't start their own version of the Boy Scouts and just go with it. Why does an established private organization have to bend to the will of people that don't want to conform to its rules?

According to your complaint, there would be no difference in any group or organization.

they don't have to bend to anyone's will. that would be wrong, and their right to do what they want has been affirmed in the courts. but everyone else shouldn't have to support them, either.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2


I simply don't understand why they feel the military can't officially support the scouts. I would think that the military, just like any other business, could support whoever they damn well please. All well as cities and allowing use of public land. They should try to remember that alot of scout troops help to keep public lands clean, hell I think you get a merit badge for it.

the military is not a buisness. it is funded by tax dollars.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Train
There are also churches on Military bases, should we kick them off too? The churches are there because people on the base attend them.

Now you've done it... I'm sure we'll be hearing about that next.

CsG

All religions are represented equally at those churches.

no, actually they are not, the churches only represent the religions of the people on the base. A lot of bases only have 1 catholic and 1 protestant church. Just like the organizations there serve the people on the base who want them, like the boyscouts for example.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

the line between employment and subsidizing? not much. its public monies used to finance an individual or group. your reasoning, is nothing if not pathetic.

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

wrong you failed. they have every right to believe in discrimination. AS LONG AS ITS NOT PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED! they have no right to public money. to pretend so is to be beyond reason.

its beyond simple. take public hand outs, abide by government antidescrimination laws. if laws are not your thing, don't take the hand out.

The use of public facilities is not taking "hand outs." Every individual involved in the BSA pays their taxes and deserves equal access to public facilities.

I agree that the BSA should not receive public funds... they are a private org. No private org should be entitled to public funds. BUT, they are entitled to use public parks and facilities just like EVERYONE ELSE. Their members paid for those facilities just as much as you and I have.

Again, you are having a difficult time understanding exactly what "subsidize" means. The equal access to public parks and facilities is NOT subsidizing. It is freedom to use what we all (including the members of the BSA) paid for.

WOW, just WOW. I wonder how those of you against the use of public facilities feel about a Boy Scout getting other public services, like calling the police...

You folks just don't understand equal protection...

How would this same logic work when applied to welfare? Should the BSA members be banned from receiving welfare?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
this thread is now about cottage cheese

I can't stand cottage cheese.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
this thread is now about cottage cheese

I can't stand cottage cheese.

It's not fond of you either. Just for the record.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i don't get why you have to believe in god to join their organization. when i have kids, i will tell them about other people's beliefs, and also my beliefs, and allow them to choose their religious beliefs

You have to believe in God to join their organization because the original founders of The Boyscouts built it around a strong faith in God. I don't see why an Athiest doesn't start their own version of the Boy Scouts and just go with it. Why does an established private organization have to bend to the will of people that don't want to conform to its rules?

According to your complaint, there would be no difference in any group or organization.

if that's the case, then it's a religious organization, and is therefore being sponsored by a government organization which goes against jefferson's clause

ACLU is right in what they are doing IMO

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i don't get why you have to believe in god to join their organization. when i have kids, i will tell them about other people's beliefs, and also my beliefs, and allow them to choose their religious beliefs

You don't really. My family isn't religious at all, but I was a scout (well, cub scout, did get my Arrow-of-Light though). The scouts certainly have functions/ceremonies/dogma that deal with religion...but you just don't participate in them if you're not religious/don't want to. I would think MOST troops and their leaders won't have a problem with this (mine certainly didn't), only the real assholes are gonna actually enforce the religious doctrine of the scouts to the point of getting demerited or kicked out.

Granted, the scouts certainly aren't perfect (there's a bit of intolerance and they're really NOT a charity) and I'm all for the ACLU and what they stand for....usually, but I have to agree that the ACLU's attacks against the scouts aren't helping anyone or anything.

I simply don't understand why they feel the military can't officially support the scouts. I would think that the military, just like any other business, could support whoever they damn well please. All well as cities and allowing use of public land. They should try to remember that alot of scout troops help to keep public lands clean, hell I think you get a merit badge for it.

well that's the thing, the military is NOT a private business, they are a government organization, and as such shouldn't benefit any one religious organization

maybe someone SHOULD start a scout-like organization that is not founded with religious goals or ceremonies. maybe the scouts should provide comparable ceremonies for non-believers, as well as allowing gay kids, and removing their requirement of believing in god, and i would have no problem with them and would tell the ACLU to back off

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

the line between employment and subsidizing? not much. its public monies used to finance an individual or group. your reasoning, is nothing if not pathetic.

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

wrong you failed. they have every right to believe in discrimination. AS LONG AS ITS NOT PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED! they have no right to public money. to pretend so is to be beyond reason.

its beyond simple. take public hand outs, abide by government antidescrimination laws. if laws are not your thing, don't take the hand out.

The use of public facilities is not taking "hand outs." Every individual involved in the BSA pays their taxes and deserves equal access to public facilities.

I agree that the BSA should not receive public funds... they are a private org. No private org should be entitled to public funds. BUT, they are entitled to use public parks and facilities just like EVERYONE ELSE. Their members paid for those facilities just as much as you and I have.

Again, you are having a difficult time understanding exactly what "subsidize" means. The equal access to public parks and facilities is NOT subsidizing. It is freedom to use what we all (including the members of the BSA) paid for.

WOW, just WOW. I wonder how those of you against the use of public facilities feel about a Boy Scout getting other public services, like calling the police...

You folks just don't understand equal protection...

How would this same logic work when applied to welfare? Should the BSA members be banned from receiving welfare?

just wow indeed. directly supporting their activities and the protection of american citizens in general are completely different things.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

the line between employment and subsidizing? not much. its public monies used to finance an individual or group. your reasoning, is nothing if not pathetic.

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

wrong you failed. they have every right to believe in discrimination. AS LONG AS ITS NOT PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED! they have no right to public money. to pretend so is to be beyond reason.

its beyond simple. take public hand outs, abide by government antidescrimination laws. if laws are not your thing, don't take the hand out.

The use of public facilities is not taking "hand outs." Every individual involved in the BSA pays their taxes and deserves equal access to public facilities.

I agree that the BSA should not receive public funds... they are a private org. No private org should be entitled to public funds. BUT, they are entitled to use public parks and facilities just like EVERYONE ELSE. Their members paid for those facilities just as much as you and I have.

Again, you are having a difficult time understanding exactly what "subsidize" means. The equal access to public parks and facilities is NOT subsidizing. It is freedom to use what we all (including the members of the BSA) paid for.

WOW, just WOW. I wonder how those of you against the use of public facilities feel about a Boy Scout getting other public services, like calling the police...

You folks just don't understand equal protection...

How would this same logic work when applied to welfare? Should the BSA members be banned from receiving welfare?

just wow indeed. directly supporting their activities and the protection of american citizens in general are completely different things.

Allowing the EQUAL ACCESS to public facilities is NOT "supporting" or "subsidizing" them is any way. It is simply allowing them to be as FREE as you and me.

Not allowing them equal access based on religious belief IS discrimination. It would be no different than banning the use of all public parks by Jews. Or even worse, banning the use of all public schools by blacks.

You seem to have a difficult time recognizing the difference between allowing equal access and funding.

 

[0roo0roo]

thats right. i demand equal access funding of a religious school for the kkk. its only fair.

 

[RaiderJ]

It seems to me that whether you agree with the Boy Scouts policies or not, you would have to agree that overall it is a positive organization - or at a minimum aspires to be. Why doesn't the ACLU pursue organizations that have no such aspirations, such as inner city gangs? Or would that be "racist".

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
It seems to me that whether you agree with the Boy Scouts policies or not, you would have to agree that overall it is a positive organization - or at a minimum aspires to be. Why doesn't the ACLU pursue organizations that have no such aspirations, such as inner city gangs? Or would that be "racist".

Consider the logistics of litigating against an inner city gang.

 

[KidViciou$]

second of all, inner city gangs are not official organizations

can't you people come up with better slippery slope arguments? it's like your not trying anymore