Boy Scouts and "government funding"

[Foxtrot]

What do you think about this? http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/26/congress.boyscouts.ap/index.html
The ACLU claims that the military letting the Boy Scouts use some of their bases for things is funding, and that is against the first amendment. They claim this because you "swear an oatch to God" and you can't be an openly gay leader (hey, no shit huh?). I am an atheist and went through Boy Scouts all the way to Eagle (highest rank) and never had any real problems. I think people are seeing things how they want to, and taking things how they want to.

 

[Eg.]

well in the military you must swear to god when you take THAT oath, and i do believe they dont like gay in the army. why id the ACLU picking on the boyscouts now?

 

[Foxtrot]

well in the military you must swear to god when you take THAT oath, and i do believe they dont like gay in the army. why id the ACLU picking on the boyscouts now?

Because the ACLU are assholes, they feel that they have to affect as many people as possible, and ruin as many things as they can all in the name of "civil liberties". I feel so liberated, now that they ruined 1/5 of my troops camp outs! yay!

 

[FictiousWill]

The ACLU is right. You don't want to start down slippery slides or even begin to provide government concessions to discrete groups with private adgendas, no matter how supposedly "wholesome". :x If the military wants the public to use its space it should make it public on a first-come, first-serve basis, or not at all.

The fact that the scouts have issues with homophobia and are an organization that promotes or expects certain religious classification makes it all the more clear that the ACLU is correct in its objections.

The ACLU is not out there to ruin your fun out of pure malevolence. As one good man put it, "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."

 

[Foxtrot]

The ACLU is right. You don't want to start down slippery slides or even begin to provide government concessions to discrete groups with private adgendas, no matter how supposedly "wholesome". :x If the military wants the public to use its space it should make it public on a first-come, first-serve basis, or not at all.

That is bullshit though, and you know it is. The Boy Scouts have no hidden agendas, maybe, maybe a few people at the top do, but it is quickly lost at the troop level, where it really matters.

 

[FictiousWill]

That's irrelevant. Whether they have an adgenda or not is not the question. You simply do not want to set a precident that could allow degredation of the system.

 

[Foxtrot]

That's irrelevant. Whether they have an adgenda or not is not the question. You simply do not want to set a precident that could allow degredation of the system.

This has been going on for a hundred years

 

[FictiousWill]

Yeah I know, and look at the shit we're in.

 

[Foxtrot]

Yeah I know, and look at the shit we're in.

Besides, the Boy Scouts and the military have always been closley related, I don't understand why the military and Boy Scouts having the same rules stops the Boy Scouts from using military bases.

 

[Icarusintel]

F*ck the ACLU, they're always against anything that might possibly be good, they'd rather help terrorists destroy america instead of infringe on their non-existant rights
And now they wanna go against the Boy Scouts!?
I was a boyscout for at least 8 years and got my Eagle, and I agree with Foxtrot, this is bullshit, the boy scouts was great and i'm an atheist as well, was the whole time, but it taught me a lot of good skills and helped me meet a lot of good friends and get out and help the community... maybe the ACLU doesn;t understand that Boy Scouts give back to the community and provides a good place for kids to go instead of getting involved in crime or anything

 

[Adabiviak]

This isn't a question about whether or not the Boy Scouts are a good idea, the issue is the military allowing a non-military entity to use their facilities and to, in effect, sponsor them. If they let the Boy Scouts do it, why not Girl Scouts? MADD? NAMBLA? The Salvation Army? It's a tougher case against the Boy Scouts because (with a few exceptions), they are a pretty decent organization. But suppose it was indeed NAMBLA? That would cause problems (although it would be funny too).

Want a good conspiracy? Methinks this is an attempt by the military to help support an entity that will produce good sign-ups. Kind of like soft drink companies paying schools to put their products in the school vending machines - breed the behavior you want early. By the time you are buying your own soda/considering your future, you've got brand awareness.

 

[CptStern]

F*ck the ACLU, they're always against anything that might possibly be good, they'd rather help terrorists destroy america instead of infringe on their non-existant rights
And now they wanna go against the Boy Scouts!?
I was a boyscout for at least 8 years and got my Eagle, and I agree with Foxtrot, this is bullshit, the boy scouts was great and i'm an atheist as well, was the whole time, but it taught me a lot of good skills and helped me meet a lot of good friends and get out and help the community... maybe the ACLU doesn;t understand that Boy Scouts give back to the community and provides a good place for kids to go instead of getting involved in crime or anything

wtf? American Civil Liberties union ...you think this is a bad thing? :rolling:

 

[gh0st]

wtf? American Civil Liberties union ...you think this is a bad thing? :rolling:

**** BITCHES AND ****** ****** PONIES union. you think THIS is a bad thing?

When I was a boyscout, we would do stuff at fort lewis and at the naval base at bremerton washington. we would even use some of their vehicles. there isnt anything wrong with it. the boy scouts are closely related to the military... less so now, but tradition dictates that the two operate together sometimes.

 

[jverne]

This isn't a question about whether or not the Boy Scouts are a good idea, the issue is the military allowing a non-military entity to use their facilities and to, in effect, sponsor them. If they let the Boy Scouts do it, why not Girl Scouts? MADD? NAMBLA? The Salvation Army? It's a tougher case against the Boy Scouts because (with a few exceptions), they are a pretty decent organization. But suppose it was indeed NAMBLA? That would cause problems (although it would be funny too).

Want a good conspiracy? Methinks this is an attempt by the military to help support an entity that will produce good sign-ups. Kind of like soft drink companies paying schools to put their products in the school vending machines - breed the behavior you want early. By the time you are buying your own soda/considering your future, you've got brand awareness.

--->Hitlers youth! does it ring a bell?

 

[Absinthe]

F*ck the ACLU, they're always against anything that might possibly be good, they'd rather help terrorists destroy america instead of infringe on their non-existant rights
And now they wanna go against the Boy Scouts!?
I was a boyscout for at least 8 years and got my Eagle, and I agree with Foxtrot, this is bullshit, the boy scouts was great and i'm an atheist as well, was the whole time, but it taught me a lot of good skills and helped me meet a lot of good friends and get out and help the community... maybe the ACLU doesn;t understand that Boy Scouts give back to the community and provides a good place for kids to go instead of getting involved in crime or anything

You are ****ing insane and you don't get it.

Thank you.

 

[The Monkey]

Well the first amendment was written more than 200 years ago, don't you think it's some to write some new?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

**** BITCHES AND ****** ****** PONIES union. you think THIS is a bad thing?

When I was a boyscout, we would do stuff at fort lewis and at the naval base at bremerton washington. we would even use some of their vehicles. there isnt anything wrong with it. the boy scouts are closely related to the military... less so now, but tradition dictates that the two operate together sometimes.

Haha, the day has finally come when gh0st just up and directly compares liberty to mandogsex. :x

Anyways, people have made good points here. Why are the boyscouts getting free access to military facilities, especially when they are blatantly discriminatory?
And please don't give me the shit that the leaders can't be gay or they'll molest all the children.

The only reason I can think of for this is that the scouts are basically a military 'preschool'. I mean, you can't honestly assume that the gov is doing this out of the goodness of it's heart.
'Hey, survivalist kids in uniforms with ranks, check out how cool it is to drive a tank in the real military!'

And yes, I was in the 'scouts as well. All our troop did 90% of the time was play dodgeball, which is the best sport ever.
But I'm not going to defend something that isn't right just because I had fun back when I was ten.

 

[CptStern]

**** BITCHES AND ****** ****** PONIES union. you think THIS is a bad thing?

/me pulls out whip

<SNAP> GET BACK!!! BACK into the ignore list you go!


:dozey:

 

[Icarusintel]

You are ****ing insane and you don't get it.

Thank you.

indeed, i did happen to miss the topic because i was upset at the time i wrote it
but i still don;t see any problem with boy scouts being able to use military facilities, they are very good for campouts (i remember camping at Andrew's AFB and had a great time) and what's wrong if the boy scouts gain a good appreciation for the US military?
I do agree other organizations should be able to use the facilities for their own campouts if they want

 

[Razor]

I don't see a problem, it isn't like the Boy Scouts are being brainwashed to go in the military, even the full military sponsored youth groups don't force people to go in the military. All they are offering is a good, secure, open, expansive area where a group of kids under supervision can camp out for a weekend and perhaps go on the assault courses, etc.

I think the only reason that the US military allow the boy scouts only to do it is just the fact that they probably have a past history of working together and trust between the two organisations.

 

[Absinthe]

It's because Boy Scouts get access yet other non-government organizations don't. Like it or not, the Boy Scouts is based on a heavy religious foundation and it discriminates against homosexuals. Giving them government-condoned special treatment is not in line with the first amendment.

You may think it's small fries, but it's still not in the right. And if you want to make exceptions to the constitution, consider yourself a hypocrite.

It's about the principle. Start poking holes in that and don't bitch when the slippery slope comes to bite you in the ass.

 

[Foxtrot]

It's because Boy Scouts get access yet other non-government organizations don't. Like it or not, the Boy Scouts is based on a heavy religious foundation and it discriminates against homosexuals. Giving them government-condoned special treatment is not in line with the first amendment.

You may think it's small fries, but it's still not in the right. And if you want to make exceptions to the constitution, consider yourself a hypocrite.

It's about the principle. Start poking holes in that and don't bitch when the slippery slope comes to bite you in the ass.

Hey, you know what else is based on religion? Our Government, and the consitution, so drop the bullshit. It does not discriminate against homosexuals at all, you can be openly gay and be in the boy scouts, you just can't be an openly gay leader.

 

[CptStern]

no they dont discriminate at all:


"We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities." Boy Scouts of America, Position Statement on Homosexuality, June 1991

"To suggest that the BSA had no policy against active homosexuality is nonsense. It was an organization which from its inception had a God-acknowledged, moral foundation. It required its members, youth and adult, to take the Scout Oath that they would be "morally straight." It is unthinkable that in a society where there was universal governmental condemnation of the act of sodomy as a crime, that the BSA could or would tolerate active homosexuality if discovered in any of its members. . . .Men who do those criminal and immoral acts cannot be held out as role models." Superior Court Judge Patrick J. McGann, in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, No. Mon-C-330-92

"[BSA's] witnesses all rely upon their own personal interpretation of the words "morally straight" and "clean" which they believe proscribe homosexuality. These views were epitomized by the testimony of William McClaughlin, the Director of Personnel Administration for the National Council of Boy Scouts of America. . . .McCloughlin testified that the reference in the Scout Oath and Law to sexual orientation was in the words "morally straight" and "clean." He stated that . . . in his application of the BSA guidelines on a national level, all behavior related to homosexual orientation is "immoral or indecent." He testified that he did not think that a gay man is able to devote himself to others, simply because he is gay." Excerpt from final ruling from the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, G. Keith Richardson v. Chicago Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America.


source

 

[Absinthe]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Contradiction.

You have a very warped recollection of history, although I can't blame you considering how much bullshit "moral America" has been shoving down the nation's throat for years. The government was not founded on religion. Sorry, it wasn't. There is nothing written in the constitution saying such a thing. If you want to argue that the nation was founded by Christians, then that's one thing, and I won't dispute that. But the government was set up to be neutral and impartial, respecting both the majority and the minority.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you know that the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954?

The idea that the US was founded on Christianity is a ridiculous misconception that is sadly believed by many misled people. Don't buy into it.

 

[Foxtrot]

Contradiction.

You have a very warped recollection of history, although I can't blame you considering how much bullshit "moral America" has been shoving down the nation's throat for years. The government was not founded on religion. Sorry, it wasn't. There is nothing written in the constitution saying such a thing. If you want to argue that the nation was founded by Christians, then that's one thing, and I won't dispute that. But the government was set up to be neutral and impartial, respecting both the majority and the minority.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you know that the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954?

The idea that the US was founded on Christianity is a ridiculous misconception that is sadly believed by many misled people. Don't buy into it.

Being founded on I meant that their beliefs were mainly from their religion, and that is what it was all based on, their beliefs. Same with the Boy Scouts.

no they dont discriminate at all:


"We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities." Boy Scouts of America, Position Statement on Homosexuality, June 1991

"To suggest that the BSA had no policy against active homosexuality is nonsense. It was an organization which from its inception had a God-acknowledged, moral foundation. It required its members, youth and adult, to take the Scout Oath that they would be "morally straight." It is unthinkable that in a society where there was universal governmental condemnation of the act of sodomy as a crime, that the BSA could or would tolerate active homosexuality if discovered in any of its members. . . .Men who do those criminal and immoral acts cannot be held out as role models." Superior Court Judge Patrick J. McGann, in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, No. Mon-C-330-92

"[BSA's] witnesses all rely upon their own personal interpretation of the words "morally straight" and "clean" which they believe proscribe homosexuality. These views were epitomized by the testimony of William McClaughlin, the Director of Personnel Administration for the National Council of Boy Scouts of America. . . .McCloughlin testified that the reference in the Scout Oath and Law to sexual orientation was in the words "morally straight" and "clean." He stated that . . . in his application of the BSA guidelines on a national level, all behavior related to homosexual orientation is "immoral or indecent." He testified that he did not think that a gay man is able to devote himself to others, simply because he is gay." Excerpt from final ruling from the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, G. Keith Richardson v. Chicago Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America.


source

All those quotes really mean nothing, as it is up to the troops to enforce the rules. Besides, there aren't many gay men with children, so the amount of people they are "discriminating" against is very very very, very small.

 

[Absinthe]

It is still supposed to respect both the majority and the minority. Giving special treatment to a Christian club is disrespectful to the rights of others and to the separation of the church and state detailed in the constitution. There's just no way around this.

It's not like I see anything particularly bad with Boy Scouts being able to go to these places. But the opportunity should then also present itself to other groups.

 

[Absinthe]

Besides, there aren't many gay men with children, so the amount of people they are "discriminating" against is very very very, very small.

And that somehow makes it more acceptable?

 

[CptStern]

All those quotes really mean nothing, as it is up to the troops to enforce the rules. Besides, there aren't many gay men with children, so the amount of people they are "discriminating" against is very very very, very small.

on the contrary, those quotes mean everything:


"the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities"


if you read the link I posted you'd see that it was comparable to when they didnt allow non-whites to join the BSA ...I guess you'll dismiss that by saying:

"Besides, there aren't many non-whites, so the amount of people they are "discriminating" against is very very very, very small"

 

[Foxtrot]

And that somehow makes it more acceptable?

Ya, it would be ridiculous to stop 3.2 million scouts from useing military bases because two guys were upset.

 

[Absinthe]

Ya, it would be ridiculous to stop 3.2 million scouts from useing military bases because two guys were upset.

Fine. **** the constitution. Have it your way. Who cares if people in the minority get the short end of the stick?

 

[Icarusintel]

well, homosexuals are fine, sex offenders are not, i think that should be the rule instead, i wouldn;t have minded having a gay scoutmaster so long as we still did all the cool stuff and he didn';t talk about being gay the whole time, and so long as he slept in a separate tent... that would be perfectly fine, wouldn;t bother me a bit

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Damn you guys had awesome scout troops, I quit because the leaders and things we did for it around here were utter crap and nothing like the other scouts across the nation did.

 

[CptStern]

well, homosexuals are fine, sex offenders are not, i think that should be the rule instead, i wouldn;t have minded having a gay scoutmaster so long as we still did all the cool stuff and he didn';t talk about being gay the whole time, and so long as he slept in a separate tent... that would be perfectly fine, wouldn;t bother me a bit

over 80% of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual

 

[Icarusintel]

over 80% of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual

ok, forgot to mention... it was the policy of my troop at least, if not the Boy Scouts in general that adults, unless they're your parent, sleep in separate tents than the kids... but i mean I slept in a tent with my dad and that was fine... except he snored... loudly

 

[Foxtrot]

over 80% of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual

I have heard that 60% of pedophiles are homosexuals.

 

[CptStern]

I have heard that 60% of pedophiles are homosexuals.

not true:


"Dr. William C. Holmes, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, authored a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that reports that 98% of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual"


source

 

[Foxtrot]

not true:


"Dr. William C. Holmes, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, authored a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that reports that 98% of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual"


source

How many of those were married men (to a women) with children though?

 

[CptStern]

what does that have to do with anything? the fact still stands

 

[Foxtrot]

what does that have to do with anything? the fact still stands

Are you trying to turn this into a gay rights argument?

 

[CptStern]

stop sidestepping the issues. You're wrong, face up to it