This is just Downright Crazy!!!!




Pentagon To Cut Boy Scouts From Bases
Associated Press
November 16, 2004

CHICAGO - The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolving claims that the government has engaged in religious discrimination by supporting a group that requires members to believe in God.

The settlement announced Monday is part of a series of legal challenges in recent years over how closely the government should be aligned with the Boy Scouts of America, a venerable organization that boasts a membership of more than 3.2 million members.

Civil liberties advocates have set their sights on the organization's policies because the group bans openly gay scout leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU believes that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination.

"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs," said ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz.

The Pentagon said it has long had a rule against sponsorship of non-federal organizations and denied the rule had been violated. But it agreed to send a message to posts worldwide warning them not to sponsor Boy Scout troops or other such groups.




The rule does not prevent service members from leading Scout troops unofficially on their own time, and Scouts will still be able to hold meetings on areas of military bases where civilian organizations are allowed to hold events.

The settlement does not resolve other ACLU claims involving government spending that benefits the Boy Scouts, such as money used to prepare a Virginia military base for the Boy Scout Jamboree and grants used by state and local governments to benefit the Boy Scouts, Schwartz said.

He said the Pentagon spends $2 million every year to prepare the Virginia base for the jamboree, held once every four years. He said the Defense Department also makes annual allocations of $100,000 to support Boy Scout units on military bases overseas and $100,000 to improve Boy Scout properties, such as summer camps.

Attorney Marcia Berman, who represented the Defense Department, declined to comment on the settlement Monday. But Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the message that will be sent to bases represents "a clarification of an existing rule that DOD personnel cannot be involved in an official capacity."

The original ACLU lawsuit named as defendants the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Chicago Board of Education. The schools settled, agreeing not to engage in official sponsorship of scouting activities.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

The Boy Scouts used to be a fine organization, until they decided to become politically active. The U.S. is not WASP heavy as it was at the turn of the last century.
The military has no choice but to evict any group that is discriminatory. That's Federal Law.

I agree with ES that the government should not be involved with promoting Scouting as long as they discriminate in any way in accepting members.

The mission statement of the Boy Scouts is as follows:

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The Scout oath:

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law:

A Scout is,

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Obedient
Kind
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent


The Scout oath mentions God, and uses the phrase "morally straight". These two points have been used by the Scouts to deny gays, and atheists, admission to the organization. When challenged in court, the courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts are a private organization, and have the right to set admissions standards. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, but if they are a private organization, and they discriminate, the government should not be sponsoring them in any way.

My personal opinion is that the primary goal of the Boy Scouts is to teach kids to be good citizens, and I don't see that believing in God, or being heterosexual, is neccessary to being a good citizen. One of the traits of a good citizen is his/her ability to get along with all of their fellow citizens, including gays and atheists.

the attacks continue. now the boy scouts are the bad guys. oh where have you gone America?

Originally posted by es347fan
The Boy Scouts used to be a fine organization, until they decided to become politically active. The U.S. is not WASP heavy as it was at the turn of the last century.
The military has no choice but to evict any group that is discriminatory. That's Federal Law.

What does W.A.S.P. stand for? I used to know, but I forgot. :o

Originally posted by Dunkirk101
What does W.A.S.P. stand for? I used to know, but I forgot. :o

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

Originally posted by Travh20
the attacks continue. now the boy scouts are the bad guys. oh where have you gone America?

Trav, where did anyone "attack" the Boy Scouts?

I think they are a fine organization, but they need to evolve with our society if they wish to maintain that reputation.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Trav, where did anyone "attack" the Boy Scouts?

I think they are a fine organization, but they need to evolve with our society if they wish to maintain that reputation. I would rather see them disband than to capitulate to political pressure. Disband and let someone else start another group up called the "Asexual/Non-Religious Affiliated Scouts". That shouldnt offend anyone. Then the homosexuals and anti-religious crowd can find something else to cry about and they can leave these children alone.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I would rather see them disband than to capitulate to political pressure. Disband and let someone else start another group up called the "Asexual/Non-Religious Affiliated Scouts". That shouldnt offend anyone. Then the homosexuals and anti-religious crowd can find something else to cry about and they can leave these children alone.

I'm not "offended" by the Boy Scouts, nor am I "crying" about them, or saying anything at all about the children. There is also no reason for them to "disband".

It's very simple. I believe that the Boy Scouts have the right to decide for themselves who can, or cannot be a member, but if they choose to discriminate on the basis of religion, or sexual preference, they should receive no government support. Their choice.

so the boy scouts are the only org in America that gets money from the government and has specific criteria to join? I highly doubt that.

Originally posted by Travh20
so the boy scouts are the only org in America that gets money from the government and has specific criteria to join? I highly doubt that.

Name some others.

As a former Boy Scout, I quit for a few reasons. Number 1, I was sick of it. It wasn't fun anymore. Number 2 was their policy on homosexuals. I can't believe that an organization in this day an age would discriminate against somebody just because of their sexual orientation.

The biggest reason why I left, however, was their religious policy. Although they won't discriminate against any particular religion, they don't allow athiests. That means to be a scout, you have to believe in an imaginary higher power. Doesn't matter which one, as long as you don't think for yourself. Not only were they conservative on religion, they also integrated right wing ideology into other aspects of scouting. The scout handbook has a section on abstinance until marriage. Frankly, that isn't any of the BSA's business. They were in bed with the NRA. After years of scouting, you would think that guns were god's greatest gift to man. They also tried to install excessive nationalism in us, over glorifying the millitary. Trust me, speaking out against the war at a boy sout meeting wasn't a good idea. I don't want my government sponsering the hitler youth of the 21st century.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Disband and let someone else start another group up called the "Asexual/Non-Religious Affiliated Scouts". That shouldnt offend anyone. . thats some funny shit !

The Boy Scouts: another prime example of core America not changing with the times. Better do away with 'em.

We can fund colleges with federal money that choose their students based on skin color, but we can't support tyhe Boy Scouts.

The hypocrisy is far beyond absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Trav, where did anyone "attack" the Boy Scouts?

I think they are a fine organization, but they need to evolve with our society if they wish to maintain that reputation.

Are you kidding? They were sued multiple times because they didn't want to let gays in their organization.

It's not the Boy Scouts that became political. They haven't changed. It's the ACLU attacks that have accused them of being political.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Name some others.

The NAACP has the tax exempt status of a politically neutral organization.

Originally posted by Brooks
The NAACP has the tax exempt status of a politically neutral organization.

I'm assuming you believe only black people are allowed to join the NAACP...

From their website:

The NAACP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAACP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Are you kidding? They were sued multiple times because they didn't want to let gays in their organization.

I was referring to the posts on this forum. I also don't think the ACLU "attacked" the Boy Scouts because they want them to allow gays and atheists to join.

It's not the Boy Scouts that became political. They haven't changed. It's the ACLU attacks that have accused them of being political.

I don't believe that the Boy Scouts are being "political", I believe they are discriminatory, and thus should receive no government support.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'm assuming you believe only black people are allowed to join the NAACP...

From their website: So tell me what do the letters NAACP stand for? National Association for the Advancement of ALL People? Hmmmm...wonder why that doesnt work.

According to scout leaders ...

gays = bad -- pedophiles = good.

ROTF

Dop

Originally posted by HaVoK
So tell me what do the letters NAACP stand for? National Association for the Advancement of ALL People? Hmmmm...wonder why that doesnt work.

They are an organization dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination...what's your point?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
According to scout leaders ...

gays = bad -- pedophiles = good.

ROTF

Dop Yeah Dop, they promote pedophilia. :rolleyes:


Why dont you do us all a favor and go blow a bigfoot. :)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
They are an organization dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination...what's your point? I think i made myself perfectly understandable. They dont stand for all people, only certain people who have the right skin pigmentation.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I think i made myself perfectly understandable. They dont stand for all people, only certain people who have the right skin pigmentation.

Right...and the NRA only protects the rights of rifle owners...:rolleyes:

Absolutely, Havok.

Vile, it's really not that complicated a concept to understand. They don't consider me a colored person. I don't get "advanced". I need not apply - I'm not the right shade.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Right...and the NRA only protects the rights of rifle owners...:rolleyes:
I'll pass the torch for making an asinine post, Vile.

Here...you take it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Absolutely, Havok.

Vile, it's really not that complicated a concept to understand. They don't consider me a colored person. I don't get "advanced". I need not apply - I'm not the right shade.

I'm sure that whatever concept you are trying to put forward is a simple one Prae, but you aren't being clear what that concept is.

If you are saying that the NAACP won't allow you to join because you are white, that has alredy been shown to be erroneous.

If you are saying that the NAACP doesn't work to protect your rights, that is true, but meaningless. They are working to promote the advancement of minorities, and you aren't one. Many organizations have a focus, but that doesn't make them discriminatory.

Bringing the NAACP into this discussion based on their name is completely irrelevant in any case. First of all, they don't receive money from the government, and secondly, the issue with the Boy Scouts isn't about their name. It's about the fact that they DO receive government money, and they DO discriminate in who they allow to join.

You can always tell when you're getting to a republican. They immediately call you a name or say something to degrade you and then change the subject while looking around for the other republicans to chime in with support.

And Havok -- you prove this everytime you post in response to me. Just once I'd like to see you debate me and knock off the childish behaviour rather than tell me to go blow a bigfoot.

You are an adult aren't you?

And one more thing ... you say "why don't you do *ALL OF US* a favor" ... which makes an assumption you speak for the entire forum. You must have long arms to pat youself on the back like that.

Anyway, for you the anonymity of the internet is your insurance policy ... or is it anonymous?

ROTF

Dop

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I'll pass the torch for making an asinine post, Vile.

Here...you take it.

If you can tell me why that was an asinine post, perhaps I will take it. I was pointing out that if you assume the NAACP only is interested in protecting the rights of colored people based on their name, then you also believe the NRA is only interested in protecting the rights of rifle owners, again based on their name. Neither assumption would be correct.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You can always tell when you're getting to a republican. They immediately call you a name or say something to degrade you and then change the subject while looking around for the other republicans to chime in with support.

And Havok -- you prove this everytime you post in response to me. Just once I'd like to see you debate me and knock off the childish behaviour rather than tell me to go blow a bigfoot.

You are an adult aren't you?

And one more thing ... you say "why don't you do *ALL OF US* a favor" ... which makes an assumption you speak for the entire forum. You must have long arms to pat youself on the back like that.

Anyway, for you the anonymity of the internet is your insurance policy ... or is it anonymous?

ROTF

Dop I've said before that the internet is not anonymous. That doesnt bother me. I have nothing to hide. So if ever you feel that I have offended you beyond your limits, and you choose to show me how un-anonymous I really am, have at it. I live in Richmond Virginia. There's a start for ya. If you want to know more, send me a PM and i'll tell you everything you want to know and save you any trouble.


Now as far as debating you, what would you have me debate? That the boy scouts promote pedophilia? Do you know how stupid that statement was? I dont need support from anyone to know how dumb that statement and most of your other conspiracy theories are.

Fine with me Havok -- if you aren't going to debate that's up to you.

Just don't take the liberty of tossing offensive remarks my way and then imply they are coming from the entire board.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Fine with me Havok -- if you aren't going to debate that's up to you.

Just don't take the liberty of tossing offensive remarks my way and then imply they are coming from the entire board.

Dop For the record, I know no one here personally. I speak only for myself when I post. It was a figure of speech.

If you are saying that the NAACP doesn't work to protect your rights, that is true, but meaningless. They are working to promote the advancement of minorities, and you aren't one. Many organizations have a focus, but that doesn't make them discriminatory.
And how the fuck is that fair? Because they have a "focus"! Look, I have a pretty good idea why you, in particular, wouldn't like the Boy Scouts, but I'll save you from the "simple concept" of that statement's purpose. Are you telling me that if the Boy Scouts had a more accurately defined "focus", you'd be less inclined to take issue with the fact that they ban homos, love god, and emulate the military? I highly doubt it. Or is the real issue the nominal amount of governmental funding they receive? Either way, the point you're trying to make about the how the Boy Scouts are more discriminatory than NAACP, is a moot one, at best.

Fair enough havok

Dop

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And how the fuck is that fair? Because they have a "focus"!

Every organization has a set of goals they are working towards...that's not the issue here.

Look, I have a pretty good idea why you, in particular, wouldn't like the Boy Scouts, but I'll save you from the "simple concept" of that statement's purpose.

I'm sure that despite my posts, you have your own opinions of what I really think.

Are you telling me that if the Boy Scouts had a more accurately defined "focus", you'd be less inclined to take issue with the fact that they ban homos, love god, and emulate the military? I highly doubt it.

No...I'm telling you that their "focus" isn't the issue at all.

Or is the real issue the nominal amount of governmental funding they receive?

Yes. I don't consider the amount of funding to be "nominal", and the amount isn't really relevant anyway.

Either way, the point you're trying to make about the how the Boy Scouts are more discriminatory than NAACP, is a moot one, at best.

Not at all. The truth is, if the Boy Scouts only allowed athiest gays to join, and they received government support, you'd be outraged.

This whole idea that the Boy Scouts need to "evolve" with today's culture is absolute idiocy. Who says today's culture is right? Organizations shouldn't be expected to "evolve" in order to conform with society. Give me a break. If anything is bigotry, THAT is.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
This whole idea that the Boy Scouts need to "evolve" with today's culture is absolute idiocy. Who says today's culture is right? Organizations shouldn't be expected to "evolve" in order to conform with society. Give me a break. If anything is bigotry, THAT is.

Huh? You obviously have an unusual definition for "bigotry".

Saying it's wrong simply because it doesn't conform with the times? that is bigotry.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Every organization has a set of goals they are working towards...that's not the issue here.
I beg to differ, and obviously, so do you. The NAACP does receive federal funding, and by doing so, the argument you have about the Boy Scouts being discriminatory and privy to governmental aid goes out the window when they're compared to a similarly funded institution, which happens to also have "restrictions" on membership. Can you not see the parallel here?
Originally posted by Vilepagan
Not at all. The truth is, if the Boy Scouts only allowed athiest gays to join, and they received government support, you'd be outraged.
And you'd be a happy camper, I'm sure.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And how the fuck is that fair? Because they have a "focus"! Look, I have a pretty good idea why you, in particular, wouldn't like the Boy Scouts, but I'll save you from the "simple concept" of that statement's purpose. Are you telling me that if the Boy Scouts had a more accurately defined "focus", you'd be less inclined to take issue with the fact that they ban homos, love god, and emulate the military? I highly doubt it. Or is the real issue the nominal amount of governmental funding they receive? Either way, the point you're trying to make about the how the Boy Scouts are more discriminatory than NAACP, is a moot one, at best.

Prae - you just get further and further out there. Geese, the humane society doesn't protect your rights. Are you up in arms against them?

Early on in this country it was decided that we would have a separation of church and state. Thus, no tax dollors should go to religious organizations or organizations that insist one have a religion to join. It's simple. It has nothing to do with WHAT the organization does but rather what one must be or not be to join.

That's right, Echo. Ditch the Boy Scouts because of a religious criterion, and while you're at it, cut out the "in God we trust" from our currency, and ban the pledge of allegiance from our federally funded schools. Go make America proud. We certainly wouldn't want to offend any non-Americans, now would we?

I don't want to "ditch the boy scouts" as you put it. I simply don't want my tax dolllors supporting an organization that discriminates.

The constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal".

I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow blacks.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow jews.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow gays.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow Catholics.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow short people.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow atheists.

Is discrimination too complex for your republican brain to grasp?

Originally posted by Echo2
I don't want to "ditch the boy scouts" as you put it. I simply don't want my tax dolllors supporting an organization that discriminates.

The constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal".

I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow blacks.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow jews.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow gays.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow Catholics.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow short people.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow atheists.

Is discrimination too complex for your republican brain to grasp?
Hear hear. The Boy Scouts, if they won't let atheists or homosexuals be in their organization, should not receive a dime from the government.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I beg to differ, and obviously, so do you. The NAACP does receive federal funding,...

They do?

...when they're compared to a similarly funded institution, which happens to also have "restrictions" on membership. Can you not see the parallel here?

What restrictions does the NAACP have on it's membership?

And you'd be a happy camper, I'm sure.

Nope, but as usual you are avoiding the point I was making.

Originally posted by Echo2
I don't want to "ditch the boy scouts" as you put it. I simply don't want my tax dolllors supporting an organization that discriminates.

The constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal".

I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow blacks.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow jews.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow gays.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow Catholics.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow short people.
I don't want my tax dollors supporting a group that doesn't allow atheists.

Is discrimination too complex for your republican brain to grasp?
The NAACP discriminates. Your "tax dollars" goes there, but apparently, you have no issue with that. I suppose you'd be all over them if they only accepted minority Christians, ay?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The NAACP discriminates. Your "tax dollars" goes there, but apparently, you have no issue with that. I suppose you'd be all over them if they only accepted minority Christians, ay?
From their web site: "The NAACP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAACP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association."

Originally posted by Vilepagan
They do?
Yes. Just got off the phone at 877 NAACP 98, and the woman in their office confirmed it.
Originally posted by Vilepagan
What restrictions does the NAACP have on it's membership? :confused: I thought it was that whole "colored" persons thing...I don't know.
Originally posted by Vilepagan
Nope, but as usual you are avoiding the point I was making.
Yes, Vile, in answer to your original question, it absolutely would piss me off.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
From their web site: "The NAACP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAACP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association."

Don't confuse them with facts Borg. I posted that early on in this thread and there are some who still say they discriminate, and have "restrictions' on membership. I suppose they do...you have to be breathing to be a member. :D

Originally posted by BorgHunter
From their web site: "The NAACP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAACP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association."
Well then they should change the goddamned acronym to NAAAP.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The NAACP discriminates. Your "tax dollars" goes there, but apparently, you have no issue with that. I suppose you'd be all over them if they only accepted minority Christians, ay?

I did not participate in the discussion about the NAACP so how the hell can you say I have no issue with that. You are prejudging me, asuming that because you are against something I will be for it. If the NAACP discriminates I do not want my tax dollors supporting them.

Again - do you understand the concept of discrimination? It isn't about whether I like some group or not. It is about everyone being treated equal no matter what they are or who they believe in. If the boy scouts allowed atheists but didn't allow christians in their group I would not want my tax dollars supporting them either.

Actually, I have to apologize, Echo. I guess the NAACP allows ALL people to be part of their organization. However, the acronym isn't very appropriate. It like starting a college named Aryan University, and in the first paragraph of it's charter, stating all are welcome regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. Silly of me to assume, I guess.

Originally posted by Dunkirk101
This is just Downright Crazy!!!!

Civil liberties advocates have set their sights on the organization's policies because the group bans openly gay scout leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU believes that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination.



Would let men lead girlscouts on camping trips that last weeks in the woods. That would be asking for girls to be abused.

In the same way you wouldn't let gay scout leaders. They would be lusting after our young children. ACLU wants to destory America.

I have nothing against gays in our life but I will not trust them to lead my grand children into the woods

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
In the same way you wouldn't let gay scout leaders. They would be lusting after our young children.
BULLSHIT. Gay = Attracted to same sex, not attracted to children. Look up the goddamned term before you open your fucking ignorant mouth. Jackass.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Well then they should change the goddamned acronym to NAAAP.

Hmm...perhaps, but then so should the Boy Scouts...

Maybe to be more accurate it should be...The Religious Heterosexual Non-Female Scouts of America...I don't think that would fit on the shoulder patch very well...
:)

That's as angry as I think I've ever seen you get Borg. Kudos for standing tall. :)

Originally posted by old-reb


I have nothing against gays in our life but I will not trust them to lead my grand children into the woods

old reb


But you would a woman to lead you teenage boys into the woods? How about a middle aged woman being a den mother? Every differnt kind of person has the potential to be a predator. You can't Isolate Gays on this subject. I supposed you think every gay man is hitting on you then as well? You can't assume that because a person is Gay that he is lusting after your children, that is closed minded and steriotypical. Come on get a grip.

Originally posted by old-reb
I have nothing against gays in our life but I will not trust them to lead my grand children into the woods


There is a contradiction in your words reb...you have nothing against them except you don't trust them...

Let's assume they took 'God' out of the pledge and allowed homosexuals. Would you libs be okay with it then? They would still "discriminate" against females.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Hmm...perhaps, but then so should the Boy Scouts...

Maybe to be more accurate it should be...The Religious Heterosexual Non-Female Scouts of America...I don't think that would fit on the shoulder patch very well...
:)
Maybe, but the Boy Scouts aren't the ones making generalized statements about implied membership requirements in the name, whereas the NAACP does. I'm sorry, but I think that's ludicrous.

Childrens groups shouldn't be about politics. Girl Scouts, boy scouts, Camp fire girls. All children should be allowed to join these groups if they want. They will have their entire adult life to deal with discrimination and hatred. Why pile it on them in groups that are suposed to for fun and learning.

Echo, should girls be allowed to join the Boy Scouts?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
BULLSHIT. Gay = Attracted to same sex, not attracted to children. Look up the goddamned term before you open your fucking ignorant mouth. Jackass.

My, My, BorgHunter, You do have a way with words. Did you learn that in college? Does that make a stronger argument when you call someone a Jackass?

I know that not all gays are petophiles. but a straight man would not be attracted to any male, child or otherwise. Even at my age I have had agressive gays trying to change me and we are equals but when you have a gay adult and a child in the woods, it is something I don't trust.

I worked for a gay supervisor and one of the employees was accused of molesting his 8 year old step daughter. The Supervisor had a check to get the employee out of jail until the Petophile said to the supervisor, "We are alike we are both sexual diviates, you like men and I like children". The supervisor wanted to punch him but in anycase the pedo stayed in jail.
The Sup said he is involved with consenting adults while the pedo is involved with a child that sees him as an allpowerfull father figure. The Pedo was black balled from working for the international company ever again.

If you call me a jackass again I will get pissed.

old reb

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Echo, should girls be allowed to join the Boy Scouts?

Should men be allowed to be girl scout leaders? Would you send your daughter into the woods with a strange man?

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Should men be allowed to be girl scout leaders? Would you send your daughter into the woods with a strange man?

old reb

What is your defination of Strange? Actually I would rather send my Boy out into the woods with a person who is qualified to work with Children. Plus there are extensive background checks to let them work with children. Ok... I am going to have to change my attitude a little bit to be more like you.

"I will not let my son go to Catholic Church or Sunday School because of all the Pediphile Priests." NOw doesn't that sound just about as ignorant as your statemnt?

::sheesh::

Originally posted by philosophytara
But you would a woman to lead you teenage boys into the woods? How about a middle aged woman being a den mother? Every differnt kind of person has the potential to be a predator. You can't Isolate Gays on this subject. I supposed you think every gay man is hitting on you then as well? You can't assume that because a person is Gay that he is lusting after your children, that is closed minded and steriotypical. Come on get a grip.

Woman = sexual passive
Man = sexual aggressive

It is the way we evolved. Man spreads his seeds where he can. Woman recieves the seed and has child to care for for life. She must be very careful to only mate with one who will care for her and her offspring.

I would have no problem with a woman boyscout leader.

old reb

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Don't confuse them with facts Borg. I posted that early on in this thread and there are some who still say they discriminate, and have "restrictions' on membership. I suppose they do...you have to be breathing to be a member. :D Let me ask a hypothetical here Vile. If there were, just for arguements sake, a NAAWP (thats NAA "White" People), and their web site said "The NAAWP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAAWP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association.", would you so innocently accept that what they say is factual?I dont believe you, or many other people would.

And for the record, does anyone know what the "mission" of the NAACP is? I would like to know what it is before I try to join because I want to know exactly what I would be supporting.

Originally posted by philosophytara
What is your defination of Strange? Actually I would rather send my Boy out into the woods with a person who is qualified to work with Children. Plus there are extensive background checks to let them work with children. Ok... I am going to have to change my attitude a little bit to be more like you.
That sounds ok, but we would have to be sure there was a good back ground check and another monitor while camping.
Strange would be someone other than a parent and even that isn't 100% save.
I have no agenda. I only seek to find what is best for our children, not for the broken pride of those who want to mold our children to their way.



"I will not let my son go to Catholic Church or Sunday School because of all the Pediphile Priests." NOw doesn't that sound just about as ignorant as your statemnt?

::sheesh::

I am not aware of at what point the Priest molest the children. They do need to have checks and balances. In a Baptist church an adult male can not be alone with a girl without a woman present.

When I was in highschool, the Catholics were considered one grade above public schools and they were mostly taught by Nuns.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Let me ask a hypothetical here Vile. If there were, just for arguements sake, a NAAWP (thats NAA "White" People), and their web site said "The NAAWP has been leading the effort for social justice for nearly 100 years. Anyone who supports the mission of the NAAWP irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation and ideology can become a member of the Association.", would you so innocently accept that what they say is factual?I dont believe you, or many other people would.

And for the record, does anyone know what the "mission" of the NAACP is? I would like to know what it is before I try to join because I want to know exactly what I would be supporting.

I was raised a racist in a segrated world where stores had water fountains for white and black and I got my butt beat many a time for drinking out of the black fountain. I saw the blacks as less than human but Martin Luther King opened my eyes. Racism harms everyone, The racist most of all. I don't care for the NAACP but they have done a lot of good to bring the races together.

old rebel

Originally posted by old-reb
My, My, BorgHunter, You do have a way with words. Did you learn that in college? Does that make a stronger argument when you call someone a Jackass?
It would be a wonderful feat for me to have gone to college, seeing as how I'm 16...
I know that not all gays are petophiles. but a straight man would not be attracted to any male, child or otherwise.
There are pedophiles who identify themselves as straight. Most, in fact, do. Yet they still are attracted to little boys (or girls).
Even at my age I have had agressive gays trying to change me and we are equals but when you have a gay adult and a child in the woods, it is something I don't trust.
You have had gays try to "change you"? Really? I have never heard of such a thing, honestly...
If you call me a jackass again I will get pissed.
And you would be right to do so. That post was really a venting of some pent-up frustration and was more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything else. Still, I think that your post was a bit off...you insinuated, pretty much, that all gay men "lust after young boys", and also the "ACLU wants to destroy America" was none too complimentary for me, as I greatly respect the ACLU and I shall probably become a card-carrying member when I turn 18.

But the jackass comment was out-of-line. My humblest apologies, reb.

Originally posted by old-reb
Racism harms everyone, The racist most of all. I don't care for the NAACP but they have done a lot of good to bring the races together.

old rebel Racism does harm everyone. Its a horrible plague on this earth. And the NAACP has done a lot of good things. For colored people. Which, I believe, is their not so hidden mission. Lets not call an apple a pickle here. I dont think they have done anything to bring the races together. Any group whose very title segregates a section of our population is not an inclusive group, its exclusive. Which does the opposite of unite.

Borg you are a 16 year old man to apologize. Saying I would get pissed is my way of goating someone on to greater attacks. You are the first to react with civility.

My opinion is that ALCU is destructive to the US and gays should not be boy scout leaders unless we can be certain they are not trying to change other peoples children.

These are my opinions. At 16, did you learn that opinions are like butt holes. Everybody has one.

old reb

Originally posted by HaVoK
Racism does harm everyone. Its a horrible plague on this earth. And the NAACP has done a lot of good things. For colored people. Which, I believe, is their not so hidden mission. Lets not call an apple a pickle here. I dont think they have done anything to bring the races together. Any group whose very title segregates a section of our population is not an inclusive group, its exclusive. Which does the opposite of unite.

HaVok,

I don't know much about the NAACP but I know the logic of Martin Luther King made me see the error of my racist beliefs. Our nations is much stronger now as one people than as two peoples. The Muslims believe in having closed societies because what they do would not be accepted in a larger society of thinking people.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Racism harms everyone, The racist most of all.

old rebel

Wiser words were never spoken, reb.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Let's assume they took 'God' out of the pledge and allowed homosexuals. Would you libs be okay with it then? They would still "discriminate" against females.

Ever hear of the Girl Scouts Dave?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ever hear of the Girl Scouts Dave?

So what? You said the government couldn't give money to any group that discriminates. Using your logic, I could just point to some group who allows gays and athiests to justify the Boy Scouts.

Originally posted by old-reb
HaVok,

I don't know much about the NAACP but I know the logic of Martin Luther King made me see the error of my racist beliefs. Our nations is much stronger now as one people than as two peoples. The Muslims believe in having closed societies because what they do would not be accepted in a larger society of thinking people.

old reb Martin Luther King was a very powerful historical figure whose love for all people was a benefit to this world. We should all try to emulate him.

However, we were talking about the NAACP, which is an association for the advancement of colored people.
What if the ACLU were instead the AACLU, the "African American Civil Liberties Union", would they still represent us all? I dont think so.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Martin Luther King was a very powerful historical figure whose love for all people was a benefit to this world. We should all try to emulate him.

However, we were talking about the NAACP, which is an association for the advancement of colored people.
What if the ACLU were instead the AACLU, the "African American Civil Liberties Union", would they still represent us all? I dont think so.

I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate.

It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

And yet, after all of this, the fact remains that:

affirmative action discimination = good
boy scout discrimination = bad

I don't buy it.

Quit funding discrimination of all kinds, or stop bitching about it.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
And yet, after all of this, the fact remains that:

affirmative action discimination = good
boy scout discrimination = bad

I don't buy it.

Quit funding discrimination of all kinds, or stop bitching about it.

This discussion hasn't even mentioned affirmative action...what's your point?

Federal funds go to colleges that discriminate against students based on skin color.

You want to stop funding discrimination, but only the discrimination you disapprove of.

Again, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
You want to stop funding discrimination, but only the discrimination you disapprove of.

Again, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your statement...as I said, affirmative action hasn't been mentioned in this discussion. How could you possibly know whether I'm for it or against it?

BTW...why are you against murder being illegal?

Originally posted by Dunkirk101
Pentagon To Cut Boy Scouts From Bases
Associated Press
November 16, 2004 - The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolving claims that the government has engaged in religious discrimination by supporting a group that requires members to believe in God.


I am a former Boy Scout, and I agree with the Pentagon's decision.

The BSA are completely free IMO to be discriminatory, and to allow only those who believe in the god of the Christians, but they are NOT at the same time qualified for government largesse that supports and promotes their discrimination.

Like another poster said......isn't it about time that we as a species grew beyond this ridiculous superstition against people of different sexual orientations??

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Not as ridiculous as your statement...as I said, affirmative action hasn't been mentioned in this discussion. How could you possibly know whether I'm for it or against it?

BTW...why are you against murder being illegal?
Screw affirmative action...forget it, don't even make it a part of the conversation here, but for the love of God, let's not lose sight of the point TGG was trying to make. We're talking about federally funded discrimination, and colleges fit the build as well as the BSA, but nothing is done about the universities because they're "appropriately" changing with the times. I say BULLSHIT! That's not fair. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. If you eliminate one, then you should have to eliminate the other as well. JMO.

I dont know about you but when I see NAACP conventions and such on TV there are not a whole hell of alot of Latinos and Native Americans in the audience or in the leadership. can you name us some non african americans at the NAACP pagan?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
...let's not lose sight of the point TGG was trying to make. We're talking about federally funded discrimination, and colleges fit the build as well as the BSA, but nothing is done about the universities because they're "appropriately" changing with the times. I say BULLSHIT!

Are you alledging here that America's colleges are ----in the manner of the BoyScouts-- rejecting applicants based soley on their sexual orientation or their particular religious belief???........because if they ARE doing that, i agree with you that any Federal funding they recieve should be taken away.

No, it's a different form of discrimination, but it's still discrimination, nonetheless, however, I applaud your effort to spin it like that. Colleges have quotas that are used, unfairly, to make room for minorities when they aren't even required to pick the best candidate for the job. This cuts the abilities of certain white applicants from attending universities based on the color of their skin. Isn't that exactly what these "oppressed" minorities have been bitching about for years? I suppose a form of "reverse" discrimination is in order to balance the inequity, ay? Do you mean to tell me that the government has a problem funding organizations like the BSA because they discriminate, but have no reservations funding other organizations that do the exact same thing? Whether you're discriminating against whites or gays, it's still discrimination any way you cut it. If we're looking to do away with discrimination, then fine, lets do it, but understand - it's a two way street.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
No, it's a different form of discrimination, but it's still discrimination, nonetheless, however, I applaud your effort to spin it like that.

I didn't "spin" anything, pal.

I simply asked you a qestion.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Colleges have quotas that are used, unfairly, to make room for minorities when they aren't even required to pick the best candidate for the job.

Ok, Prae.

I'm willing to listen to your point of view here. I'm actually anxious to hear it.

Firstly, when you say --"they aren't even required to pick the best candidate for the job" -- what *job* are you talking about?

I don't know if you're talking about colleges hiring of instructors, or college's acceptance of applicants.

In either case, can you provide some info on colleges that do it, and also some info on those colleges recieving government funding.....?

Nothing very involved....just some general info that supports what you say is happening. Thanks.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Do you mean to tell me that the government has a problem funding organizations like the BSA because they discriminate, ...

It would seem that for the past 94 years---IOW, up until a few days ago-- , the US government has had NO problem with giving $$$$$$$$$ to support the discriminatory organization known as the BoyScouts.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Whether you're discriminating against whites or gays, it's still discrimination any way you cut it.

I agree.......but there is such a thing as trying make redress, and to make up for the heinous treatment certain groups of people underwent in this country, that the government at the time did nothing to stop.

The Boy Scouts in this country were never enslaved and systematically denied educational opportunies, as far as i'm aware.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Not as ridiculous as your statement...as I said, affirmative action hasn't been mentioned in this discussion. How could you possibly know whether I'm for it or against it?

BTW...why are you against murder being illegal?

I've mentioned it twice now, you must have a reading problem.

Ignore it if it makes you feel better.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Are you alledging here that America's colleges are ----in the manner of the BoyScouts-- rejecting applicants based soley on their sexual orientation or their particular religious belief???........because if they ARE doing that, i agree with you that any Federal funding they recieve should be taken away.

No, they're making their choice based alot in part on skin color. In other words a qualified white who scored a bit better than a minority may get rejected simply because they're not black or hispanic.

Are you people really not aware of how affirmative action works? You get various boosts in entrance scoring depending on your race and what college you are applying to.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
No, they're making their choice based alot in part on skin color. In other words a qualified white who scored a bit better than a minority may get rejected simply because they're not black or hispanic.

Are you people really not aware of how affirmative action works? You get various boosts in entrance scoring depending on your race and what college you are applying to.

Yeah, we're aware of how affirmative action works...how does this relate to the Boy Scouts, or discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation?

Let me spell it out for you, since you're playing dumb.

You stated earlier that you're against federally funded discrimination.

Colleges receive federal funds. They discriminate based on race. The fact that you're refusing to see the parallel seems to indicate you would approve of affirmative action, but not another kind of federally funded discrimination.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Let me spell it out for you, since you're playing dumb.

Not playing dumb, just trying to stick to the subject.

You stated earlier that you're against federally funded discrimination.

Colleges receive federal funds. They discriminate based on race. The fact that you're refusing to see the parallel seems to indicate you would approve of affirmative action, but not another kind of federally funded discrimination.

The only "parrallel" is the word "discrimination".

The Boy Scouts discriminate based on religion, and sexual orientation. In the middle of a discussion about the Boy Scouts, you stuck in this comment:

Federal funds go to colleges that discriminate against students based on skin color.

You want to stop funding discrimination, but only the discrimination you disapprove of.

Again, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.

What the hell does racial discrimination have to do with the Boy Scouts?

You then state falsely that I only want to stop discrimination that I "disapprove" of, which implies that I approve of some types of discrimination.

The hypocrisy here is not on my part, you want to eliminate affirmative action yet you seem to approve of the Boy Scout policy...no?

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to fighting discrimination, you do it one step at a time, and it's possible to discuss one kind of discrimination without having to address them all.

Vile, not to speak for anyone but myself, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. I think he's saying that you are being inconsistent. In one sense, with the boy scouts, you say you are against groups that discriminate recieving federal funding. He's saying that in order for you to be consistent, you should be against universities recieving federal funding.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Not playing dumb, just trying to stick to the subject.


The only "parrallel" is the word "discrimination".

You keep missing the point. The parallel which completes the comparison is that affirmative action is federally funded.

The Boy Scouts discriminate based on religion, and sexual orientation. In the middle of a discussion about the Boy Scouts, you stuck in this comment:
What the hell does racial discrimination have to do with the Boy Scouts?

So some federally funded discimination is ok, as long as it's the discrimination you agree with.

You then state falsely that I only want to stop discrimination that I "disapprove" of, which implies that I approve of some types of discrimination.

The hypocrisy here is not on my part, you want to eliminate affirmative action yet you seem to approve of the Boy Scout policy...no?

No, I'll happily approve of the government shafting the Boy Scouts as soon as the ACLU fights racial discrimination at the college level. Just be consistent.

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to fighting discrimination, you do it one step at a time, and it's possible to discuss one kind of discrimination without having to address them all.

Only the ACLU fights much discrimination at the same time, although it ignores discrimination it approves of.

See?

Originally posted by Freethinker

Ok, Prae.

I'm willing to listen to your point of view here. I'm actually anxious to hear it.

Firstly, when you say --"they aren't even required to pick the best candidate for the job" -- what *job* are you talking about?

I don't know if you're talking about colleges hiring of instructors, or college's acceptance of applicants.

In either case, can you provide some info on colleges that do it, and also some info on those colleges recieving government funding.....?

Nothing very involved....just some general info that supports what you say is happening. Thanks.
First off, if you weren't trying to spin anything, then I apologize. Secondly, almost any state university is under some form of government subsidy. "Underprivileged" (i.e. minority) students get grant money to attend state universities while the federal government puts programs in place to insure that those universities reserve enrollment spots for the grantees. While the colleges might not be taking money directly from the government, they're doing it in the form of grants, and in return for the money, the government stipulates that these institutions allot a specific number openings for certain minorities to attend. In effect, the government is paying for universities to be selective in their enrollment process. This action is purely discriminatory, and that fact alone makes it subject to severe criticism, especially, if a major beef the government has with the BSA is that they're discriminating. If that isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Freethinker
It would seem that for the past 94 years---IOW, up until a few days ago-- , the US government has had NO problem with giving $$$$$$$$$ to support the discriminatory organization known as the BoyScouts.
Was it really discrimination at the time, or was it just an organization that represented a core portion of the population? After all, if we could turn back the clock 94 years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Hell, if we could turn it back 30 years, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but the problem is, this is an institution that reflects the values that built this country, not what's "politically correct" or socially accepted, and that's the hiccup we're having.
Originally posted by Freethinker
I agree.......but there is such a thing as trying make redress, and to make up for the heinous treatment certain groups of people underwent in this country, that the government at the time did nothing to stop.

The Boy Scouts in this country were never enslaved and systematically denied educational opportunies, as far as i'm aware.
So, in the search of being fair to some, be unfair to others...:rolleyes: Good plan. How very proactive of you.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
You keep missing the point. The parallel which completes the comparison is that affirmative action is federally funded.

No, I'm not missing the point...perhaps you think we can't discuss the Boy Scouts without discussing all types of discrimination, but I do.

So some federally funded discimination is ok, as long as it's the discrimination you agree with.

:rolleyes: I already put this idea to rest. You mentioned something earlier about reading skills?

No, I'll happily approve of the government shafting the Boy Scouts as soon as the ACLU fights racial discrimination at the college level. Just be consistent.

Only the ACLU fights much discrimination at the same time, although it ignores discrimination it approves of.

See?

Guess what? I'm not with the ACLU.

For the record Gat, I'm not in favor of affirmative action. I just think it has little or nothing to do with the subject of the Boy Scouts, and their policies. See?

Why should we only discuss the type of discrimination you want to outlaw?

What I'm basically saying is that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to stop Boy Scouts from discriminating and getting federal funding, I'm damn sure going to bring up affirmative action, because it makes my point nicely and it's hypocritical to fight federally funded discrimination by one organization only.

You don't want to discuss it because you know I'm right.

I’m against both. I’m a liberal…so there you have it. Have fun…you aren’t making a very good point. Most liberals, that I know, are against affirmative action, as well.

I am making a good point. It just doesn't apply to you, or we agree, either way.

Either allow both or disallow both.