City says scouts' use of land is in jeopardy - The group's exclusion of gays and atheists is...

Philadelpia Inquirer ^

[HopeSprings]

The Scouts usually don't get a "free ride" in the use of public facilities. They may not pay a fee, but they make improvements in the facilities over the years that add up to a significant dollar amount. If cities want the Scouts off their properties, they should be prepared to increase their budgets to cover the improvements the Scouts will no longer be making.

[Myrddin]

When United Way in San Diego pulled funding for the Scouts in the early 80's, I pulled funding for United Way. The annual "Friends of Scouting" fundraising drive is conducted directly by the Scouts and they are the sole beneficiary. United Way wailed when a large volume of contributors dropped them. Subsequently, they offered a "directed" contribution alternative. Grudgingly. It's far more efficient and certain to support the Scouts via "Friends of Scouting" than to trust the perverted money grabbers at United Way.

[twigs]

You're right; normal folks do need to fight back! However, I don't think you can paint all clergy with such a broad stroke. A Sunday School teacher from my church "inappropriately touched" a young girl (not a pedophile, but inappropriate nevertheless) and it was a clergyman who called the police. And dealt with it very professionally. Protected all involved. It does happen! And yes, we do need to fight back!

[MississippiMan]

Do you mean the gays and atheists? Whatever "sad" time awaits them they asked for it themselves and deserve to suffer.

The sad times I'm referring to consist of an eternity in hell. I hate to see anyone suffer that, and wish they would repent and turn to Christ and avoid it. That's what I'm talking about.

I of course applaud the Boy Scouts and hope they continue to be one of the few national voices standing firm on Godly principle.

MM

[Roughneck]

. And dealt with it very professionally. Protected all involved. It does happen! And yes, we do need to fight back!


It is well and good for clergy to handle things concerning their own congregation - but national voices are needed, beyond the "money mongerers" (tv evangelists that have tainted christianity)

[Roughneck]

If I had a nickel for every person killed in the name of God, I'd be very rich. Who is more moral, an atheist who respects the rights and freedoms of others and does not commit "sins" with others, or one who has accepted a God into his heart, and spends his days on earth killing infidels?


You are talking apples and oranges.

An atheist who is a good person will still go to hell - along with all the infidels the christians kill /sarcasm

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yep, same ones

[george wythe]

Well, at least the Scouts cannot be accused of anti-Muslim bias.

Devout Scouts: Serving Allah

The Girl Scouts of Troop 869 are 10, 11 and 13. Inside a white-shingled house in Beaverton, they giggle about Britney Spears, groan about their brothers and count the days until high school.

But as a recent troop meeting began, they quieted. Mariam Ali, the troop leader, asked them to recite the first chapter of the Quran in memory of the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq who had died two days earlier when a bomb exploded outside their mosque.

"Remember the tragedy that occurred in Najaf," Ali said. The girls, all Shiite Muslims, spoke the verses together in Arabic.

In their green Girl Scout vests stitched with badges, the girls of Troop 869 are the newest members of a 91-year-old tradition rooted in the American South. With their Muslim headcoverings and prayers, the girls also represent how far the Girl Scouts have gone to tailor Scouting to many faiths, or none.

In the Name of Allah Award

Similar badge for the Boy Scouts

[Kuksool]

Companies pushing its employees to donate to the UW is similar to mandatory union dues for blue collar workers. Below is an article about corrupt in the UW.

"Donor choice a negligible factor at United Way"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973910/posts

[Sub-Driver]

Here's an additional article concerning a local community college.....

http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/index.ssf?/base/news-1/106380156439710.xml


Gay CCC student asks change



Wednesday, September 17, 2003


By PETE McCARTHY
Staff Writer

VINELAND -- Kyle Brandon would like to see some changes made at Cumberland County College.

As an openly gay student, Brandon was dismayed by the fact that the Boy Scouts of America were recently allowed to hold a private function on school grounds, despite what he said are acts of discrimination against homosexuals by the organization.


Six months after beginning a discrimination complaint against the college, Brandon said CCC President Ken Ender has made no attempt to rectify the situation.

The 36-year-old Vineland resident, who is a full-time student in his second year at CCC, went before the Board of Trustees Tuesday with three requests.

"I believe it is the duty of the school administration to take the lead in providing a non-discriminatory and safe atmosphere for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation," said Brandon.

Currently, there is no language in CCC's policies speaking out against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He wants that changed.

Brandon would also like to see the community college limit the rights of any "discriminatory private organizations to have access to college facilities for educational forums only."

Lastly, he would like a written apology for what he believes has been a complete lack of effort made by the school administration to address his grievance.

"I am here before the board only after a formal complaint was made to President Ender and a follow-up meeting with him made it clear that his obvious bias in favor of the BSA would ensure that no actions would result from my discrimination complaint," Brandon told the trustees.

The incident in question took place in April of this year and saw Ender honored by the Boy Scouts of America with the Distinguished Citizen Award.

Ender, a scout since he was 8 years old, held the event on the campus of CCC.

"When you are the president of the college, you should stay away from any organization that discriminates," Brandon said. "While President Ender's private views are his own, I personally feel he showed a lack of leadership by completely ignoring the rights of gay students by participating and sponsoring the BSA fundraiser on campus."

Brandon added an organization like the Boy Scouts, which he called biased against homosexuals, should not have been able to hold a private event on the public property.

"It's the same as having the (Ku Klux Klan) renting the Guaracini Theater," he said.

Board of Trustees President Joanne Gittone and Ender both declined to comment on the matter following the meeting.

All questions were referred to their solicitor, Frank Basile.

"The concerns are going to be considered along with all the facts relevant to the issue," he said.

Basile said he has been asked by the board to come up with an opinion on the matter, which will then be used during discussion and a vote by the entire board.

[freeangel]

Gays want to join because they cannot reproduce--they must recruit and these scouts might provide them more meat. Atheists want to join anything because most of this country believes in a God but not in them. I guess if they can "force" people to let them in, they might feel accepted.

[talleyman]

They need the space for NAMBLA

[jimt]

Why should all citizens be forced to support the Scouts through this handout when some of them can't join? That's absurd.

It's hard to call a 75 year use of property a "handout", given how it started and developed. No tax dollars are going towards this, only an absence of government thievery. All improvements to the property were made by the Scouts, who provide benefits to the overwhelming majority, including homosexuals and atheists who keep their mouths shut. In 1928, when the deal was made, anyone who suggested the Scouts should be forced to accept homosexuals would have been sent to the nuthouse. There weren't any "anti-discrimination" laws, either.

I'll bet the city or some other government entity provides meeting space and facilities for a host of homosexual and atheist organizations. How about at the same time they evict the Scouts they evict all the homosexual and atheist organizations as well?

The next step in this absurd farce will be to prohibit Scouts from using public roads, or going to public parks.

Were we in Libertopia, I'd agree with your comments. As we're not, supporting the homosexual position does immediate damage to large numbers of Scouts, and provides little or no benefits to the homosexuals, other than their satisfaction in successfully harassing them for their incredible temerity in not wanting young boys to be exposed to homosexuals.

They have no right to be "accepted" or "celebrated". Not here, and not in Libertopia either. In our ideal world, a private business that displayed a sign saying "No homosexuals or atheists allowed" would be perfectly acceptable.

[jimt]

Why? The military doesn't keep atheists out, and allows gays, as long as they don't broadcast their homosexuality.

The Scouts are the same, other than an atheist needs to keep his views quiet. They don't ask what church you go to.

[freeeee]

No tax dollars are going towards this, only an absence of government thievery.

Ideally the city wouldn't own any property not absolutely necessary for it to conduct its legitimate functions. I don't believe setting aside property for private groups should be one of those functions. But in this case it is. So the taxpayer has at some point paid for some property, or foregone the money that could have been made by selling the property which could in turn be used to lower taxes. Once that has been done, it is just to charge the users of this property a user fee, so as to offset the cost to the taxpayer of purchasing and maintaining the property and minimize government thievery.

It appears in this case, the user fee has consisted of upgrades to the property, including the construction of a building. However now that the Scouts enjoy exclusive use of the building and the property, others cannot use it. In essence the taxpayers have bought the Scouts a free lot of land.

The crux of the issue is, do other groups have the same opportunity as the Scouts to enter in a similar arrangement with the city on other lots of land?

If they do, then there is no problem aside from the city giving away free lots, which it shouldn't be doing in the first place.

If not, then taxpayers are being forced to exclusively support a group that will not accept some of them as members. This is fundamentally unjust and nothing less than outright theft.

I'll bet the city or some other government entity provides meeting space and facilities for a host of homosexual and atheist organizations. How about at the same time they evict the Scouts they evict all the homosexual and atheist organizations as well?

That would be fine with me. The city shouldn't be in the business of providing facilities to anyone.

The next step in this absurd farce will be to prohibit Scouts from using public roads, or going to public parks.

That goes beyond the issue here, and would be persecution for unpopular beliefs, and exercising an unalienable right to freedom of association. I would join you in opposing that.

In our ideal world, a private business that displayed a sign saying "No homosexuals or atheists allowed" would be perfectly acceptable.

And in that ideal world, that business's land wouldn't have been given to it by taxpayers.

This controversy somewhat amuses me, in that conservatives are whining about not getting a handout from government. And the old wisdom of "when you live in my house, you'll live under my rules" seems to have been forgotten. Let the Scouts move out from mommy government's house. Then they can make their own rules and rightly so.

[freeeee]

The Scouts are the same, other than an atheist needs to keep his views quiet

That's not exactly true. To join the Scouts, one must proclaim belief in some higher power. An atheist would have to actively lie to join the Scouts, not just remain silent.

[MEGoody]

"For the past five years, ALL of my United Way donations have been directed towards the BSA and the Girl Scouts."

I'm not sure if all United Way's across the country do the same thing, but I've found it's better to donate to these groups directly. Our local UW has a set amount they are planning to give to each organization. When you specify that your donation go to a specific organization, they 'add' your $, but subtract other $. There's no actual increase in the monies allocated to BSA/GSA. (Unless the UW's overall donations are larger than anticipated.)

In addition, if you give directly to the organization, they end up getting more actual $ because there are no UW administrative costs involved. :)

[MEGoody]

"I seem to remember something about the Girl Scouts instructional material being really feminist.

Let me put it this way. . .if I had a young daughter these days, I'd find something else to get her involved in.

While the BSA has stood their ground morally, the GSA has lapsed. The national GSA board has stated that gay leaders must be allowed. That just an example of how they have lapsed.

[jimt]

Ideally the city wouldn't own any property...

In Libertopia, we'd stop right there.

...so as to offset the cost to the taxpayer of purchasing and maintaining the property and minimize government thievery.

And in 1928, apparently land was so cheap the city felt comfortable in giving it away. The city hasn't paid anything to "maintain" the proerty - the Scouts have done that.

The crux of the issue is, do other groups have the same opportunity as the Scouts to enter in a similar arrangement with the city on other lots of land?

If we could travel back in time to 1928, I'll bet the answer is "yes". Some consideration has to be given to history here. It's not like this happened last year.

If not, then taxpayers are being forced to exclusively support a group that will not accept some of them as members. This is fundamentally unjust and nothing less than outright theft.

Taxpayers aren't paying for anything related to the Scouts occupation of a building they built and maintained. They aren't supporting the group, either. They're simply allowing them to continue to use what they've had for 75 years.

Should the Scouts have bought the property in 1928? I think we'd both say "yes" to that one. But at the time it must have been relatively valueless, or the city would never have let them have it.

"The next step in this absurd farce will be to prohibit Scouts from using public roads, or going to public parks."

That goes beyond the issue here, and would be persecution for unpopular beliefs, and exercising an unalienable right to freedom of association. I would join you in opposing that.

While it does go beyond the issue, the principle is exactly the same. This current exercise is nothing more than "persecution for unpopular beliefs, and exercising an unalienable right to freedom of association." And in fact the beliefs are "unpopular" with a small minority. It's not like the Scouts are hiding in bushes waiting to pounce on homosexuals and atheists. No one is actively hurting them. The Scouts are merely exercising what is, and should be, an inalienable right to free association. It is the homosexual activists who are seeking to do active harm.

This controversy somewhat amuses me, in that conservatives are whining about not getting a handout from government.

I think we both identify with traditional conservatives on many issues. And in this case, it's not a "handout", it's just a case of goobermint not sticking their "hand in".

And the old wisdom of "when you live in my house, you'll live under my rules" seems to have been forgotten.

Again, it's a tiny minority of activist homosexuals and their enablers who have seized control of government and are using it to harass their perceived enemies. That's not libertarian, by a long shot.

Let the Scouts move out from mommy government's house. Then they can make their own rules and rightly so.

As soon as the goobermint stops any funding/facilities/space/advertising/support for homosexual groups, then certainly. Five will get you fifty that taxpayers are funding Philadelphia homosexuals bigtime. Way, way more than any imputed "funding" of the Boy Scouts through allowing their building to remain.

[freeeee]

If we could travel back in time to 1928, I'll bet the answer is "yes". Some consideration has to be given to history here. It's not like this happened last year.

Good point.

Should the Scouts have bought the property in 1928?

Perhaps they should buy it today? The city sells it to them for a small fee, and is free of this controversy. The Scouts stand on their own feet, and can limit membership accordingly. Everyone wins.