What have you done for me lately?
 

a client of mine just left after griping for 20 minutes about the ACLU. knowing the client, that isn't a big surprise, but he did get me thinking. his current gripe revolves around the Boy Scout jamboree. basically all the scouts get together every 4 years and do whatever it is that boy scouts do. this year for the first time since the 1930's the boy scout jamboree was not able to be sponsored or assisted by government organizations. historically, the DOD provides tents and manpower to assist the organization - but not anymore.

because the boy scouts require all members to acknowledge the existence of God, providing them with assistance or sponsorship would be a violation of separation of church and state. apparently this was a victory for the ACLU?

because of their name and their charter, anybody who is critical of the ACLU risks being "anti-american", "anti-liberty", etc. but my real question is what position have they championed recently that actually took some back bone? or even made sense? (I remember a few years back they championed the KKK's right to march in Skokie, IL - unpopular to be sure, but the ACLU realized that even scumbags have certain rights.) other than that case, i can't remember hearing anything out of the ACLU, in recent years, that sounded like anything but petty political maneuvering.

thoughts?

You do know the whole founded by commies thing, right?

"I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. What the viewers should be asking is - Bob Rumson, why aren't you?"

the ACLU is just set up in such a way that any argument against them is so easy to twist into a "so what do you have against Civil Liberties?" moment, that its just ridiculous.

they fight to remove religious elements from the public eye. of course, they also are fighting to help the mormon fundamentalists keep the right to be polygamist, childraping, welfare living freaks.

their agenda is pretty hard to nail down sometimes.

Did they end up representing NAMBLA or were they just considering it?

I think the ACLU picks and chooses their cases in such a way as to give themselves the most exposure. If you have a run of the mill 1st Amendment case, don't expect the ACLU to show up on your behalf ... it's not about the law, it's about their publicity.

They are, incidently, largely funded NOT by your $20/year contributions, but by charging exhorbinant legal fees that get lumped into whatever settlement they win (sometimes more than the settlement, incidentally), which is why a lot of the folks they go after settle.

I guess you could call anything petty political maneuvering or publicity seeking, especially since they can't handle every case and therefore must be selective, but here's a list of some issues they're handling:

PATRIOT Act and the SAFE Act
Civil rights for gays
Evolution in schools
Surveilance of citizens
Civil rights for Muslims
Internet regulation
Civil rights for Native Americans

If you want to see everything they're doing, they do have a web site. There, you can see even the stuff that doesn't make national news.

About bloody time. Support an organization that inculcates hatred as a stated part of their mission? Give me a break! :rar:

You may want to be more certain of what they are actually teaching.

who and what exactly are boy scouts taught to hate? i remember camping, first aid, volunteering at the old folks home, the carwash and donating proceeds to the school... but for the life of me, i don't remember the badge for showing enough hate. did i miss a lesson?

oh wait, there was that time they let us use knives to whittle - should that be deemed as a danger to society?

The official stance is that you're OK no matter what religious beliefs you have as long as a) it involves some sort of supernatural aspect, and b) you're not gay. Individual troops may have more restrictive views, especially Mormon troops, though perhaps not officially.

Gays and atheists.

please provide documentation to show that the boy scouts teach children to HATE gays or atheists.

they are an organization that feels strongly that A) there is a higher being than one's own self, and B) that homosexuality is wrong. They believe that to be a part of the organization you should hold to those beliefs. that does not equal hate.

if the scout leader were to sit down one afternoon and say, *redneck twang* "now boys, you all know we don't hold with them faggots and godhaters, so let's make some signs to hold up and make sure you grab some rocks to throw at 'em too." now that would be teaching hate.

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

Makes sense to me, I don't understand your gripe.

oh BS. i teach my son that stealing is wrong. i don't teach him that anyone who steals is worthy of our hate.

jinx - my gripe is that the BSA can be a valuable experience in a child's life. it is an organization that has been very positive for many many people. they aren't on the sidewalks handing out christian/buddhist/hindi tracts or proselytizng people, but because recognizing a higher power is a core value of the group they are now rejected from the assistance they have historically received.

Like all sweeping generalizations, the accuracy of your statement matches it's precision.

I checked their mission statement. It's one sentence. I quote it here and it's dependent elements.

There is no inculcation of hatred. Trust me on this one.

Now, you may know individuals who are hateful and involved in Scouting. But to libel the organization the way you have is inaccurate, inflammatory, and inappropriate. I urge you to take up your grievances with the people about whom you have a complaint.

In the decades I have been involved in Scouting, hatred has NOT been a part of the program, not on an individual, patrol, troop or district basis. I have seen no evidence of hatred by Scouts, or leaders; no evidence, factual, circumstantial or apocryphal.

There *is* a policy in the organization at the highest levels that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a Boy Scout Leader. This is not inculcating hatred. An organization cannot hate. People hate. I imagine there are Scouters who hate, but tarring all Scouters this way would be as correct, soothing and fair as saying you, as an American, are an imperialist pig given America's foreign policy. Maybe it fits, but even if it does, it's not because of the policy, it's because of your individual qualities.

They're taught to exclude gays and atheists. Whether they're taught to hate them as well is, like so many things in Scouting, up to the individual troop. What can raise the most bad feelings is that most kids at the age in which you join the Scouts don't have set views on religion or sexuality, and they only come into their realization after several years in a troop. If at that point they are atheist or gay, they have to either quit, play along, or announce. If they announce, many troops would be happy to let them stay, but the greater organization comes down and overrules them, which never causes happy feelings.

Screw it. You can teach your son whatever you like. The Boy Scouts can teach their members whatever they like, too. But they CAN'T DO IT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT. That's all the original ACLU case was about.
Lookout, do you teach your son that homosexuality is "wrong"? How will that impact the way he treats gays, for the rest of his life? How about us atheists?

I guess we disagree right here. If the Scouts say that a gay person is not "Morally Straight", then they are condemning an individual. In fact, an entire class of individuals. That opinion is most certainly transmitted to the youth they lead.

Official reference regarding tolerance.

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective. Tolerance is not anarchy. Even if it were, anarchy is not hatred. Intolerance is not the same as hatred. You wildly overstate the truth. Do you have standards? Do you hate everything that doesn't match your standards? Does your intolerance make you a hypocrite?

It's wrong that they ever received gov't assistance (regardless of how valuable you think their services are) - not wrong that they won't anymore. You can try to minimize it all you want, but requiring recognition of a higher power as a core value of the group is a major sticking point with some Americans.

So, people are now fighting to be included in an organization whose principles they reject?

why?

I can't speak for them (although I would guess they'd like to change those principles). What I am fighting for is to yank their public funding.

Oh, okay. I guess that's cool, as long as they yank the NEA's as well. The government pays for too much fluff anyway.

stick-poking aside, if the BSA's public funding is revoked, can they keep their little creed thing?

(calming down)
Yes. One should have standards. However, one cannot espouse religiously-derived standards as membership criteria for an organization and still receive government funding.

Look, Pie. What "the Scouts say" and what *I* say as a Scout leader don't match all the time. Does that make me unqualified as a Scout leader? You know, this isn't the Whitehouse with an airtight policy alignment of adherence to the party line. You make an easy mistake by short circuiting a couple of points and making a direct zap to your conclusion. Avowed homosexuals cannot be leaders in the organization --> organization says gays are not morally straight --> different==evil==worthy of hate.

Come on. It just *isn't that way*. If you know these people, these Scouters and you don't jive with them, move 10 blocks west and connect with another troop. This is a very local organization. The ideas you're so apoplectic over are coming from Irving, Texas. That's far far away from me. On purpose. You can associate with like minded people in any organization. Look at our diverse country, we all get along as a country. Look at the cellar, we get along here too, despite some unbridgeable divides. If you looked into Scouting, you'd find that there's a way to get along there too.

Your characterizations of the BSA as haters just is not true. Whether or not you choose to persue it further is entirely up to you.

Totally different. While you may not value the National Endowment for the Arts (I don't really either), you can apply to get funds from that endowment, the same as every elephant dung artist out there.

But aren't all members of an organization responsible for the actions of that organization? In college, I read a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" that had a few ideas that really stuck with me. If one fundamentally disagrees with the tenants of an organization, one has two options: exit or voice. "Loyalty" in this context is the triumph of complacency over ethos.

The Boy Scouts want to limit membership while soaking up everyones taxes. Sorry, that don't fly, get off the teat. I say the ACLU can hound them until they stop using public schools for their meetings as well. Once they get their hands out of the cookie jar, I'll defend their right to freedom of association.

Now that's what I ment to say. :blush:

I've been trying to think of a way to phrase my feelings on this, but it's hard. I was a Scout for seven years, worked at a camp one summer after that, and attended camp as an adult leader one other year. I loved it, and the views on gays and atheists are a dark stain on an otherwise wonderful program. It wasn't one that came up much, in my experience, though, but when it did it was jarring. One camporee, we were forced to pick a religious service to attend on Sunday morning, and due to family history I picked Catholic. It's the only time I remember ever taking communion, and it felt like a disturbing imposition on a personal issue.

In an organization that in many ways goes out of its way to be inclusive, it is sad when accidental bigotries of history interfere with the good work they do.

More than that, the DOD is MY money. Why should the Boy Scouts be funded by me? If I want to support them I'll give them money. :eyebrow:
Don't give me any shit about all the other things the DOD is using my money for, were talking Boy Scouts here.

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization. I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat. This separation is usually in proportion to my dedication to the organization, the size of the organization, and the importance of the issue at hand.

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

Pie, I want to explore your statement. Actually, it's not easy for me to agree or disagree with an organization. It is much more natural for me to agree or disagree with an idea, a statement, or for me to express support or approbation for an action. Organizations have ideas, make statements and take actions. if I focus my response on these things, I find I make better, more reliable decisions.

Let me illustrate. I believe in the idea of fairness. I think it's important, and worthy of my support. A different person may also believe as I do. You could say we agree with each other about the idea.

If this other person said "Fairness is important.", I would agree with his statement. This is a stronger sense of agreement, since a statement is a more concrete, tangible expression than an idea.

If this other person demonstrated fairness, I would again approve, and this is the highest expression, the most real manifestation of fairness. Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history? It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

I don't see your choices as comprehensive or mutually exclusive.

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

As much as it is MY money. The statement that the Boy Scouts are funded by you, through your taxes via the DoD is just plain trolling. Puh-lease! Furthermore, our representational government implies that you and I have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions. If you don't like it, trow da bums out.

Do. Or don't. But seriously, you should.

I reckon there's considerable affinity between the two organizations. They are structured similarly, they share very much the same values, and I believe that the Armed Services recognizes these things. I believe the chance to plant favorable seeds in fertile young minds for the cost of a base-wide drill can be easily justified as a recruiting expense.

Absolutely, it's called segregation. Except for some progroms and inquistions, Jews have been tolerated for most of the past 2000 years. Even in the early 20th century United State, we were tolerated. It was only when we tried to check into certain hotels and join certain country clubs that we found the difference between 'tolerance' and 'inclusion'.

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

I was a scout for a few years, we met at our local synagogue. I was catholic at the time, and meeting there gave me a lot of exposure to Judaism, which I can say only opened my mind to other ways of thinking and worshipping god. The adults I met who were invovled in our troop, were real mensches, to use a phrase. I'm sure the adults had differences of opinion about many things outside of scouting, but we never cottoned on to that as kids.

The other scouts were really pretty good guys to be around. Probably not as exciting (read larcenous/misdemeanorous) as some of my neighborhood friends, but also not so cliquish or back stabbing either.

I may have stayed on longer, but our scoutmaster left the troop for some reason, I think it was a combination of being married and also because (I think) he felt a number of the parents were not carrying their end of the load. Could be wrong.

In any case no one really stepped to the plate after he left and I really admired him to the point where I doubt anyone could have filled his shoes.

I don't hate anyone, and my intolerance is limited to peoples actions (e.g. letting your dog crap on my lawn and walking away as if you were leaving me a bag of Krügerands) rather than any other defining characteristic.

This non hatred wasn't the result of deprogamming either.

But that was my troop.

At a World Jamboree one time I was asked by my scoutmaster to invite the scoutmaster from another troop on a ballon ride. My scoutmaster was a hot air ballonist. This other scoutmaster and troop was from Arabia. I have no idea what this guy was thinking or what he was about, what kind of cultural worlds were colliding at that moment, but I did sense what i took as hostility or at least contempt. He sat there silently eating a piece of sausage not saying a single word for several minutes. My friend and I just sat there wiating for his answer that we could report back to our scoutmaster. After an extraordinary long silence he fianlly said OK or something to that effect. Probably not as long winded as OK. This was 1972 if I remember.

Whatever, that was his trip.

As far as the us govt fundung the BSA, is that new? I'm not surprised. During one drill at summer camp it occurred to me that the only difference between us and the military was that we didn't have guns. (they were locked up down at the rifle range, and we paid for our own bullets.)

I agree with BigV, the hatred and intolerance is a local thing and was not part of the program when I was there. But that was 30 sumpin years ago.

Not government funding, but use of government resources not available to the general public.

BTW, there are all sorts of cultural cues which can be mistaken. Some cultures avoid eye contact, which makes them appear suspicious. From your description pf the encounter, I can't say if the guy was being rude or just thinking it over. I wasn't there. Of course, 72 was the Munich Olympic bombing, so there might have been tension.

You left out teaching you to shoot and forcibly crossing old ladies across streets.

If you weren't actually Catholic you shouldn't have taken communion (Protestants have a very different view of this one, incidentally).

And yes, that's a big deal, if you're Catholic. Hell, it's a big deal for me and I'm a very lapsed Catholic, to the point where I cannot take communion unless I would re-up.

Fortunately, Wolf, you needn't engage in ritual cannibalism anymore. You can engage in simple feasting instead.

I prefer leavened. And mead.

Exactly. I didn't feel like I had a choice.

BigV, as usual, your arguments are thoughtful and thought-provoking. They certainly deserve a cogent response. Unfortunately, I am heading off on a business trip to Texas in about 20 minutes, so I hope you'll forgive me if I delay my response till I get back (this weekend)? :o
- Pie (off to meet Emily...)

violence, sexism, and ageism, if you apply the ACLU's standards. The terms 'ACLU' and 'standards' should no longer be found in the same sentence. The morally just and absolutely necessary fight for equality that started in the 60s is no longer the ACLU's mission, regardless of what they'd like you to believe. They're more concerned now with keeping their leaders rich and their constituents in a constant state of victimhood. If no one's angry at heterosexual white males any more, the fine folks at ACLU have to get real jobs -- and no one wants that.

When you're a kid, you don't have "choice" in the adult sense of the word. You don't get to pick your bedtime, you don't get to sass your elders, you have to eat your vegetables. If you want to be a scout, you have to do the salute and the knot-tying and the recited oaths -- it's not a social experiment or a venue for children to feel 'liberated.' The religious subtext to scout rituals is kind of like junior freemasonry. It's all pomp and circumstance, not an attempt to convert anyone to Religion X.

Apologies to followers of 'Religion X,' if such a thing exists.

Kids need structure and discipline and routine. If their parents follow a certain value system, kids are bound by it until they turn 18, at which time they are completely free to say, "You guys are full of shit" and pick their own path (and that of their children). /twocents

The BSA excludes homosexuals? I always thought <i>they</i> were gay.

Everywhere I've lived Boy Scouts are the kids who get ridiculed and beat up on the playground before, during and after school.

You don't have to suck dick to be ghey.

Where have you been? Didn't you get the memo?

Sorry I was distracted by the Thai transvestites in another thread.

I think the BSA has every right to have exclusionary policies. But as an Eagle Scout, their stances on atheism and homosexuality sadden me, and I refuse to have anything to do with them anymore.

Fuck You Boy Scout!!! Don't tell me I'm just fucking trolling when I make a very important fucking point. You got that?? DOD is MY fucking tax money and I don't want it spent on the Boy Scouts. You got that?? :flipbird:

Bruce for what it's worth i would absolutely agree with you if, A) that is why funding was pulled, and B) they start yanking funding from all of the other non-essential programs and organizations.

pffffffft! hahhaha

I'll forward your remarks to your Congressman, where they possibly could make an impression. Assuming you vote.

Here you go.

Senators and Representatives. You'll have to pick the right Rep yourself.

Sorry, you're not my type. Try here.

Stick your list up your condecending ass.
I know who my elected reps are...more importantly they know who I am, and how I feel. I'm actively keeping them informed all the time so they know I don't support your little brown shirts. :p

You have to start somewhere plucking these parasites off the DOD tit. I'll bet most people aren't aware of where the money goes. That's where the ACLU can help by making this shit public. :eyebrow:

I would like to know. I heard an interview with someone on the radio who was explaining that all the services/chores enlisted men used to perform such as KP, laundry, etc. are now subcontracted to private comapanies who charge a friggin fortune and are paid much more handsomely than the guys who are fighting.

I think that is fucked up. I'm sure the guys at the top of that pyramid are buddies with or members of the bush/cheney/binladen consortium.

But can you link to or list any of the other teat suckers? My blood could use a little boiling and I like to keep in the know. Thanks.

The amount of money wasted by our government is obscene. That list would be 500 pages, with footnotes and appendices. Both parties, all branches. Every representative from every district has favors to pay off. Some of those favors have been paid off continuously for 50 years, but have never been stricken from the balance.

this is not a new thing with Bush. it has always been there, but was largely accelerated with the massive drawdown in the early '90's. and of course the civilians are paid more - you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

Point taken, corruption/cronyism isn't new.

I'm still not sure why civilians should be doing the job of the military. I have read that it is getting increasingly hard to find enlistees who are suitable for the military, but still, I imagine an army (in the generic sense) should be able to cook and clean etc for itself.

Not so sure were not paying those PLUS a tidy profit to those peoples employer? :eyebrow:

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.