Boy Scouts and "government funding"

[Foxtrot]

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

Wrong about what? You have no idea what you are talking about, so I highly doubt that I am wrong, and you somehow have more insight into this.

 

[CptStern]

Wrong about what?

oh I dont know ...this maybe?:

I have heard that 60% of pedophiles are homosexuals.

You have no idea what you are talking about, so I highly doubt that I am wrong, and you somehow have more insight into this.

....yet surprisingly you didnt provide any proof to back up your statement ....hmmm I guess we should all just go on "gut-instinct" alone, facts be damned :upstare:

 

[Foxtrot]

oh I dont know ...this maybe?:








....yet surprisingly you didnt provide any proof to back up your statement ....hmmm I guess we should all just go on "gut-instinct" alone, facts be damned :upstare:

Honestly, I don't really care about that, just said that I saw a study that showed those numbers. If you want to discuss this, make your own thread.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

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

There's nothing about sexual preference in the constitution.

 

[Eg.]

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

BY OTHER PEOPLE. what we need is a breakdown of how many boys to girls are victims of sexual assault

 

[CptStern]

BY OTHER PEOPLE. what we need is a breakdown of how many boys to girls are victims of sexual assault

well, better get busy researching

 

[Icarusintel]

BY OTHER PEOPLE. what we need is a breakdown of how many boys to girls are victims of sexual assault

i was sexually assaulted... by my right hand :|

 

[Absinthe]

There's nothing about sexual preference in the constitution.

My "**** the constitution" comment was in regards to his argument that it doesn't matter if minorities get screwed over. I am not aware of anything in the constitution regarding sexual preference.

But let's say that there is. Do you advocate that discrimination against homosexuals is justified and moral? Just a yes or no question, really. Getting into a debate about homosexuality itself would not only be off-topic, but something I currently don't feel like investing time and effort into.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

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

This post pisses me off so much, I don't know why. Equating the Hitler's Youth with the Scouts..

Wow, especially after they just had 4 troop leaders electrocuted at a big meeting.

 

[FictiousWill]

^ The boy scouts are not the issue here. You're just using them to obscure the point (for yourself as much as for others).


@ Absinthe & CptStern, you guys rock.

 

[jverne]

This post pisses me off so much, I don't know why. Equating the Hitler's Youth with the Scouts..

Wow, especially after they just had 4 troop leaders electrocuted at a big meeting.

why not? hitler wanted the kids to be raised up the nazi style! your gov. want's the kids to be grown up as they see fit->god fearing, moral people,...and other bullshit! isn't it at least vaugely the same?

 

[Foxtrot]

why not? hitler wanted the kids to be raised up the nazi style! your gov. want's the kids to be grown up as they see fit->god fearing, moral people,...and other bullshit! isn't it at least vaugely the same?

You are so far off from the truth, I can only assume you are mentally retarded.

 

[Foxtrot]

This post pisses me off so much, I don't know why. Equating the Hitler's Youth with the Scouts..

Wow, especially after they just had 4 troop leaders electrocuted at a big meeting.

My brother is at the place where that happened. Some contractors were trying to move a large tent and they got some scout leaders to help and they hit a power line, 4 of them were killed and 3 were injured, their sons were watching too.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

why not? hitler wanted the kids to be raised up the nazi style! your gov. want's the kids to be grown up as they see fit->god fearing, moral people,...and other bullshit! isn't it at least vaugely the same?

Why don't you speak to someone who was forced to join the Hitler Youth, and ask them what they think of your comparison?

 

[CptStern]

You are so far off from the truth, I can only assume you are mentally retarded

which symptoms of mental retardation have you seen in jverne, foxtrot? ...this is important because perhaps we can create a precedent here by making the world's first e-diagnosis ...give that man a nobel prize!


relax, I dont think jverne was making a direct comparison to hitler

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yeah, because he meant -literally- the condition of mental retardation.

 

[CptStern]

ya cuz he meant -literally- the boy scouts are little SS hate-mongers in the making

 

[Razor]

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.

Too be honest, i think the US constitution is a load of out dated crap that should of been chucked long ago and a more modern version created.

 

[CptStern]

something like this?


"We be teh peeps of da United States of America, in Order to, youknow ummm, form a Union, a ..umm perfect union, be establishing Justice, and domestic Tranquilitee... be providing fo da defence of da commoners, be promoting da general's Welfare, and be securing the Blessings of da Libertee to ourownselves and our Posteritee, do be ordained and established this Constitution for the United States of America, God bless, peace out. "

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

"We be teh peeps of da United States of America, in Order to, youknow ummm, form a Union, a ..umm perfect union, be establishing Justice, and domestic Tranquilitee..."

Haha, but you see, ebonics is considered by some to be a legitamte language to teach in school now!



Scary

 

[Sainku]

Too be honest, i think the US constitution is a load of out dated crap that should of been chucked long ago and a more modern version created.

All our constitution does is describe the form of government and describes our rights. There is very little that needs to be changed to modernize it.

Either way, I'm just glad I live in a day where the little guy can stand up and make a difference by taking away a bunch of 11 year olds fun. It makes me all warm inside. :cheers:

 

[CptStern]

Haha, but you see, ebonics is considered by some to be a legitamte language to teach in school now!



Scary

yes, I remember that thread

 

[SOCL]

I was a Boy Scout for most of my pre-teenage and teenage years and made it all the way to Eagle Scout. During that time, I spent the entire time in Boy Scout troops that were either on or near military bases. Now, the question--if I understand it correctly--is whether or not Boy Scout troops should be allowed to use the military's property to host events and the such.

Okay, I'm not sure how matters worked at the military bases others have claimed to have used, but I do know how they functioned for the following bases:

-Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Norfolk, VA
-Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk, VA
-Fort Story, Virginia Beach, VA
-Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia Beach, VA
-Fort Campbell, KY

Except for Fort Campbell, none of these military bases have EVER allowed the Boy Scouts of America to use their property. Always the reason is because the Boy Scouts of America are a private organization. Little Creek NAB, though, had a patch of land called "Scout Island" which was on grounds that were only accessible via the base, but belonged to the city of Virginia Beach. Fort Campbell, on the other hand, had a restricted policy as to the amount of help they could provide the BSA. For instance, a specific unit could decide to sponsor a scout troop and provide them with a building in which to meet, but they were to provide no more than that. Quite simply, government funds are not (or were not, I suppose is the deal now...) permitted to be used by private organizations.

In case anyone gets fussy about the words "private organization" realize that a private organization is one that is allowed to discriminate. While I was in the BSA, my Scoutmaster rejected the entrance of three scouts because they were in violation of the basic rules of scouting. Two were atheists and one was openly homosexual--the latter-most would have been rejected even if he wasn't openly homosexual because the BSA does not have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I'm not sure how you made it to Eagle, Foxtrot, while being an open atheist. Quite recently an Eagle Scout admitted to being an atheist and was stripped of rank and position, and was banned from the BSA for life. Now, were the BSA a public organization, these sort of matters could not happen as it is discrimination, but being a private organization allows the BSA to due as it more-or-less pleases--BSA has never claimed to be an "equal opportunity" organization.

Further, has anyone considered that the reason matters were so much more strict before on the use of military property by the BSA was because the Democratic administration under President Clinton. Further, it seems to fit with the pattern of the current Republican administration (not to mention Republican-dominated Congress) of current-President Bush to pass such policies. This happens every time the administration changes from the right of the Republican party to the relative left of the Democratic party for each administration and party believes in certain interpretation of the Constitution. Whatever I or anyone else might think of the Constitution, however, the Constitution is the law of the land in the USA no matter who is in charge, period. We may not all be pleased with what it says, but unless it is amended, it is the standing law. I don't agree with many parts of it, but I also agree with many parts of it, regardless, it is the law and it has to be followed and enforced. How that's done has proven to be a relative question for the party in power to address.

Now, I've tried to stay neutral throughout what I wrote and I honestly did my honest best to keep my opinion out of it. The only thing I'll post about what could possibly be interpreted as what I personally believe is that one must be careful when it comes to the "slippery slope". If one allows matters to begin slipping and does not stop it (stop it, not slow it down), then that is in direct opposition to what the Constitution--the law of the United States of Amerca--says. It would be the same thing as though I were to lie to a friend a little or lie to them a lot: in the end, one has still told a lie. When it comes to law, one mustn't regress to simply choosing the "lesser of two evils", but must not accept any of the "evils". If the law says something is a certain way, that's it, period, no matter what I, you, or anyone else believes. It doesn't matter how many feelings you hurt or if someone gets angry: someone's feelings are going to get hurt and/or they're going to get angry anyway because one of the parties is not going to get what he or she wants. If my son hits my daughter really hard numerous times, I punish him. If he then hits her again, but once and with less force than the previous times, this still does not make it right. I suppose from one point of view it is a step in the correct direction, but it is not correct, and so I will punish my son regardless of how angry or hurt (feelings) he will be. And, in the process, I will sit him down and explain to him why he has been punished and why he should not hit his sister so that he will understand why he is being punished. If he does it again, anyway, he must be punished, yet I will still explain to him why.

In the end, I follow the law, whether happy about it or not. How do I express my opinion? By for whom and what I choose to vote or petition. There are legal ways to go about these sort of matters, simply getting angry does nothing. So, what I'm trying to say is, people, take a deep breath and calm down. There's no need to insult and flame each other over this. Try to act like adults.

 

[gh0st]

/me pulls out whip

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


:dozey:

O NOES ZOMG LOL

COMMISAR STERN BLOCKZoRE)ZED ME. WTF CAN I DO NOW?! TIEM 2 FAP MY WIENER IN RAGE LOL.

 

[jverne]

Now, I've tried to stay neutral throughout what I wrote and I honestly did my honest best to keep my opinion out of it. The only thing I'll post about what could possibly be interpreted as what I personally believe is that one must be careful when it comes to the "slippery slope". If one allows matters to begin slipping and does not stop it (stop it, not slow it down), then that is in direct opposition to what the Constitution--the law of the United States of Amerca--says. It would be the same thing as though I were to lie to a friend a little or lie to them a lot: in the end, one has still told a lie. When it comes to law, one mustn't regress to simply choosing the "lesser of two evils", but must not accept any of the "evils". If the law says something is a certain way, that's it, period, no matter what I, you, or anyone else believes. It doesn't matter how many feelings you hurt or if someone gets angry: someone's feelings are going to get hurt and/or they're going to get angry anyway because one of the parties is not going to get what he or she wants. If my son hits my daughter really hard numerous times, I punish him. If he then hits her again, but once and with less force than the previous times, this still does not make it right. I suppose from one point of view it is a step in the correct direction, but it is not correct, and so I will punish my son regardless of how angry or hurt (feelings) he will be. And, in the process, I will sit him down and explain to him why he has been punished and why he should not hit his sister so that he will understand why he is being punished. If he does it again, anyway, he must be punished, yet I will still explain to him why.

In the end, I follow the law, whether happy about it or not. How do I express my opinion? By for whom and what I choose to vote or petition. There are legal ways to go about these sort of matters, simply getting angry does nothing. So, what I'm trying to say is, people, take a deep breath and calm down. There's no need to insult and flame each other over this. Try to act like adults.

Man you, know thats all bullshit! theoretical it should be like that...but look at the current situation!?

People in power can get away with almost everything...some basic examples...-our minister of deffence came in the country without even showing the passport (in our constitution is written that everyone who goes trough the border without showing papers is considered an illegal imigrant)! Now he is pissed, because this "incident" was in the media and he blamed high officials in the ministry for this. he then transferred all these "culprits" into other ministries...he placed someone with an degree in national defense, in the ministry of school...WTF...he doesent even have adequate education to be in this place!
-our anti-corruption agency was shut down by the parliament, due to "incompactibility" with the government...WTF!
-our elites and other important people (such as doctors, lawyers,...) with a relatively high pay, managed to cut down their monthly salary lower than an average physical worker (an worker gets an average of 400 dollars, doctors and such managet to show on paper that they get only 300 dollars per month), this of course gets them a lower income tax, and privileges in social welfare, wheres they dont even remotly need help!!! Of course they have villas and drive in expensive cars!

Where's the constitution now!? I agree the law is the law...but you're a damn idiot to fully respect it!!!




P.S. i wonder when people her in "Politics" forum will learn that we are just mixing air here..it's really a waste of time discussing such things! We will never make any diffrence! I have high respect for some people here (like CptStern, No limit, and other), as much as they are good rethorics and political "active", none of them really did anything to help their cause here on the forums or in their real life! I was and partialy am politicaly "active", but i keep getting farther and farther away, i keept complaining about things but, now i just don't care that much. It's good to be informed but that is all..thats why i choosed to go to an thechnical university (Construction) instead of my once true love HISTORY, physics is harder to learn, yes, but it makes life much simpler and easy, instead of complaining what are they doing "up there"...and i'm only 19 i bet that only 0.5% of people here would ever pursue a political career and succseed!
Some examples to think about...
George Bush->doesn't know a shit about politics and is perhaps one of the powerful persons in the world, he is an buisnessman!
Bill Gates->he is a programmer and has so much power that literally he dictates politics!
Saudi Arab sheyks (sp?)->they don't give a shit about philosophy and theorethical politics, yet 2/3 of the advanced world lies on their good will...buisnessmen!

I don't want to offend anyone here, but look inside yourself and tell me that i'm tottaly wrong!?

 

[OCybrManO]

George Bush->doesn't know a shit about politics and is perhaps one of the powerful persons in the world, he is an buisnessman!

Well, he ran all of the businesses into the ground and was, allegedly, involved in that Harken scandal (very similar to what went on at Enron and ImClone)... so I don't know if he should really be classified as a "businessman," either.

 

[SOCL]

Man you, know thats all bullshit! theoretical it should be like that...but look at the current situation!?

People in power can get away with almost everything...some basic examples...-our minister of deffence came in the country without even showing the passport (in our constitution is written that everyone who goes trough the border without showing papers is considered an illegal imigrant)! Now he is pissed, because this "incident" was in the media and he blamed high officials in the ministry for this. he then transferred all these "culprits" into other ministries...he placed someone with an degree in national defense, in the ministry of school...WTF...he doesent even have adequate education to be in this place!
-our anti-corruption agency was shut down by the parliament, due to "incompactibility" with the government...WTF!
-our elites and other important people (such as doctors, lawyers,...) with a relatively high pay, managed to cut down their monthly salary lower than an average physical worker (an worker gets an average of 400 dollars, doctors and such managet to show on paper that they get only 300 dollars per month), this of course gets them a lower income tax, and privileges in social welfare, wheres they dont even remotly need help!!! Of course they have villas and drive in expensive cars!

Where's the constitution now!? I agree the law is the law...but you're a damn idiot to fully respect it!!!

I'm with you, man, I'm with you, but you get what I mean? If you let matters get on the 'slippery slope', you begin to lose rights and freedoms. That may sound a tad ridiculous, but it truly isn't. Besides, I never claimed to agree with all the laws nor to the fact that I believe they should all be enforced, but I do believe in the ideal of forming laws and following them. Now, though, in the Untied State of Georgia one must own a firearm to own a house, yet that law is not enforced, so if I buy a house in Georgia, I'm not going to buy a firearm, I do not care what anyone says. Do you get what I mean? I believe one must respective the laws that are in place even if one doesn't agree with them, this, of course, does not mean, however, that common sense is thrown to the wind.

 

[CptStern]

I was in the BSA, my Scoutmaster rejected the entrance of three scouts because they were in violation of the basic rules of scouting. Two were atheists and one was openly homosexual--the latter-most would have been rejected even if he wasn't openly homosexual because the BSA does not have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I'm not sure how you made it to Eagle, Foxtrot, while being an open atheist. Quite recently an Eagle Scout admitted to being an atheist and was stripped of rank and position, and was banned from the BSA for life.

that's just incredibly sad ..on that basis alone I would never want my son to be a member

 

[Absinthe]

that's just incredibly sad ..on that basis alone I would never want my son to be a member

religious tolerance lol

 

[CptStern]

well ...they didnt say anything about tolerating non-religions

"We like everybody ..so long as you believe in god, arent homosexual and remain so for your entire life .....your children too"

 

[Foxtrot]

well ...they didnt say anything about tolerating non-religions

"We like everybody ..so long as you believe in god, arent homosexual and remain so for your entire life .....your children too"

Good job twisting things around to fit your perverted agenda. They never said they hate anyone, it was never even hinted at anywhere. They just want their members to not be atheists and not gay.

 

[Absinthe]

They're still discriminatory. Yes, that is up to them since they are a private organization. However, that does not mean I find their reasoning to be any less absurd and worthy of criticism.

ADDED: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/

Nice read for anybody interested in the subject.

 

[CptStern]

Good job twisting things around to fit your perverted agenda. They never said they hate anyone, it was never even hinted at anywhere. They just want their members to not be atheists and not gay.

:upstare: ya I can see how you believe they dont hate:

"homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts"

"Men who do those criminal and immoral acts (homosexuality) cannot be held out as role models"

"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."


hate rhetoric is still hate


oh btw what "preverted agenda" do I have?

 

[Foxtrot]

:upstare: ya I can see how you believe they dont hate:

"homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts"

"Men who do those criminal and immoral acts (homosexuality) cannot be held out as role models"

"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."


hate rhetoric is still hate


oh btw what "preverted agenda" do I have?

Those sound like quotes from a few people, which don't represent a majority of the BSA. Maybe Minnesota is just incredibly liberal with that kind of stuff, but nothing like that happens. Oh and in the case of the Eagle Scout being stripped of his rank, it was because he was being a stubborn asshole. They asked him if he believed in any higher being, God, Mother Nature, anything (an obvious loophole), and he refused and said no.

 

[CptStern]

Those sound like quotes from a few people, which don't represent a majority of the BSA. Maybe Minnesota is just incredibly liberal with that kind of stuff, but nothing like that happens. Oh and in the case of the Eagle Scout being stripped of his rank, it was because he was being a stubborn asshole. They asked him if he believed in any higher being, God, Mother Nature, anything (an obvious loophole), and he refused and said no.

no, these are not random quotes by individual boyscouts ..they're direct quotes used in COURT in cases involving discrimination by the BSA


for example:

"He (William McClaughlin, the Director of Personnel Administration for the National Council of Boy Scouts of America) testified that he did not think that a gay man is able to devote himself to others, simply because he is gay"

Chicago Commission on Human Relations, G. Keith Richardson v. Chicago Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America





again I ask you ...what "preverted" agenda do I have?

 

[Foxtrot]

no, these are not random quotes by individual boyscouts ..they're direct quotes used in COURT in cases involving discrimination by the BSA


for example:

"He (William McClaughlin, the Director of Personnel Administration for the National Council of Boy Scouts of America) testified that he did not think that a gay man is able to devote himself to others, simply because he is gay"

Chicago Commission on Human Relations, G. Keith Richardson v. Chicago Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America





again I ask you ...what "preverted" agenda do I have?

In court, and they obviously don't represent all of the BSA, and if you are to disagree with that it just exemplifies your ingorance on the subject.

Your agenda is pretty simple, make anyone who doesn't approve fully of homosexuality a hate monger.

 

[CptStern]

In court, and they obviously don't represent all of the BSA, and if you are to disagree with that it just exemplifies your ingorance on the subject.

why do I bother posting evidence if you dont read it? THESE ARE NOT RANDOM PEOPLE BUT THE LEADERS OF BSA: THEY ARE BSA they're the ones who shape policy and make decisions for the organization as a whole ...stop sidestepping the issues

Your agenda is pretty simple, make anyone who doesn't approve fully of homosexuality a hate monger.

no I dont have an agenda when it comes to homosexuality ..I just cant stand bigots and hate-mongers ..It could be any race/greed/nationality/whathaveyou

and your hate is all too apparent: ..."preverted"

 

[Absinthe]

In court, and they obviously don't represent all of the BSA, and if you are to disagree with that it just exemplifies your ingorance on the subject.

You're an apologetic. The BSA's leadership prohibits the membership of known/avowed atheists and homosexuals. While this may not be in line with the thoughts of some of its members, it can be argued that it is for the majority. More importantly, this kind of prohibition is advocated by the institution itself. There's no way around it. To defy it is to defy the BSA's national council. But the most I've heard of is the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows some lower councils to bask in blissful ignorance rather than actively promote the acceptance of diversity.

This is like saying that not all Nazis were for the extermination of Jews. While that's certainly true, that doesn't make the institution on the whole any less vile.

(And no, I'm not making a comparison to the Nazis in terms of ideology and actions. Simply demonstrating a point.)

 

[Foxtrot]

You're an apologetic. The BSA's leadership prohibits the membership of known/avowed atheists and homosexuals. While this may not be in line with the thoughts of some of its members, it can be argued that it is for the majority. More importantly, this kind of prohibition is advocated by the institution itself. There's no way around it. To defy it is to defy the BSA's national council. But the most I've heard of is the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows some lower councils to bask in blissful ignorance rather than actively promote the acceptance of diversity.

This is like saying that not all Nazis were for the extermination of Jews. While that's certainly true, that doesn't make the institution on the whole any less vile.

(And no, I'm not making a comparison to the Nazis in terms of ideology and actions. Simply demonstrating a point.)

Heh, don't ask don't tell, how the hell can there be anything else? Just tell? I am sure if a homosexual was trying to get in he wouldn't bring his boyfriend with him. Also, the average age is 14, so I doubt that will ever be a problem. I also doubt that they are a majority, out of all the troops I know, I have known many atheists in all of them. Also, I even argue about religion sometimes, I was never stripped of my rank or kicked out, I was actually invited to become an adult leader.

why do I bother posting evidence if you dont read it? THESE ARE NOT RANDOM PEOPLE BUT THE LEADERS OF BSA: THEY ARE BSA they're the ones who shape policy and make decisions for the organization as a whole ...stop sidestepping the issues

And that is where you are wrong, the BSA is not the few people at the top, it is the troops, the leaders of the troops, and the members that make it up. They are almost entirley independintly run. It is like saying that all Americans hate homosexuals because most states don't allow them to marry.

 

[Absinthe]

It is like saying that all Americans hate homosexuals because most states don't allow them to marry.

Therefore the institution is not worthy of challenge?

I have no doubt in my mind that many troops accept atheists and homosexuals. But what about the ones that don't? What about the people that are denied membership or stripped of their badges? What about them?

Of course, you've already implied that minorities don't matter.