quote:When I said there is nothing wrong with being gay, you said that was disputable. Is that because you think there IS something wrong with being gay, or just because I stated it as too much of an absolute, and there must be at least some reasonable people out there who believe that there is something wrong with it?
You also said that is the crux of the issue. I disagree.
The crux of the issue is whether or not the BSA has the right to pick and choose its members and leaders along ANY dimension and still receive public money and use public resources.
Not that long ago there was concern over the BSA being discriminatory against girls. Nowadays it's gay men. Next decade it might be something else.
This issue doesn't go away. Who is currently making news over the BSA's policies does change. Apparently, the BSA's policies themselves change from time to time...
So the crux of the issue isn't just the current wedge issue. It's the question of these quasi-private/quasi-public entities that rose up in a different America than many people want to live in now, but which many wish to either preserve or return to...
That's the crux of the great social debate that is ripping at this country...
It's a good starting spot. Most of Bob's posts are, even when he disagrees with me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bite. I'm opposed to quasi-private/semi-public entities receiving public funding. I'm opposed to any organization, with selective membership, receiving public funding. If you want your little organization to be able to pick and choose members based on certain characteristics, then go jump in a frozen lake if you want my money.*
Groups like the Boy Scouts, private schools, and religious organizations are all groups that I don't feel should receive any public funds. I might make an exception for providing transportation to private school students, and a couple of other extremely grey areas.
(Public funds, in this case, means taxpayer dollars.)
* Disclaimer: I'm not saying I never donate to organizations like the above stated groups. I do. I don't go around banging my drum about it, or even keeping track of it. I wouldn't even bring it up here, except I'm slightly apprehensive of the reaction to my above statement regarding a chilly body of water.
And yes, Bob always makes good points, even when I disagree with him, which is rare. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The crux of the issue is whether or not the BSA has the right to pick and choose its members and leaders along ANY dimension and still receive public money and use public resources.
That's as good a place as any to start with. There is, however, one thing that I think also needs to be considered. I feel that it is important to also decide how rigid this rule should be. It is my belief that the positive contribution of an organization is extremely important to consider.
Personally, I feel that the scouting movement is very beneficial to society as a whole. For one thing, community service is a big part of most scout troops. In my own experience, this service has included such activities as helping the elderly, environmental conservation, and volunteering at food pantries. Supporting the scouting movement is not simply supporting some random private organisation, it is supporting an organisation which helps support the local community.
In addition, scouting has, in my experience, a very positive effect on the character of its members. I'm not saying that scouts are perfect (heck, I can remember us being total punks sometimes), but everyone I know who stuck with scouting for any length of time was much improved by the experience. While some may argue over the specific interpretations of the movement's values (especially in the case of controversial issues like those regarding homosexuality), they are still good values. Some of these values, such as honesty, trustworthyness, and environmental conservation would be things which our country needs more of, not less. I would argue that cutting back on organisations which promote these values would be detrimental to our society.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While some may argue over the specific interpretations of the movement's values (especially in the case of controversial issues like those regarding homosexuality), they are still good values.
A good value, misapplied, is no longer a good value.
quote:Some of these values, such as honesty, trustworthyness, and environmental conservation would be things which our country needs more of, not less. I would argue that cutting back on organisations which promote these values would be detrimental to our society.
First, no one is "cutting back on" these organizations. They are still free to exist and will as long as their are members who will support them. The people they bar from participation in their society should not be forced to support them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I make a distinction in my mind between receiving public funds and being able to meet on public property. Is there a legal distinction?
For example, I think I oppose the Boy Scouts receiving public funds (knowing very little about the matter). However, I think the Boy Scouts, as well as most other groups, should be able to rent school property to meet on during out of school hours.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They are still free to exist and will as long as their are members who will support them. The people they bar from participation in their society should not be forced to support them."
Take this argument to its logical conclusion and I think we should privatize everything. Make taxes voluntary and itemized to where you want your tax dollars to go.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the public sphere has gotten far too big. I don't think I should be forced to support most of what our government does.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "They are still free to exist and will as long as their are members who will support them. The people they bar from participation in their society should not be forced to support them."
Take this argument to its logical conclusion and I think we should privatize everything. Make taxes voluntary and itemized to where you want your tax dollars to go.
Taxes are voluntary, just not directly. We select the law makers to make the decisions for us. If we don't like federal taxes we could all vote for the libertarian party.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. BSA funding comes from private sources.
There are some military units that sponsor a troop and it is possible some military members spend time on the troop with permission from the military. That's an indirect support.
The public support generally comes by use of land and facilities. Except for the camps and land owned directly by the BSA, the chartering organizations (the schools, churches, community groups, military units) that sponsor units (troops, packs, ships, etc.) provide the places.
This explains a lot of the dynamics here. The BSA CANNOT exist without the community organizations, the majority of which are public schools and churches. The BSA provides the materials and sells the uniforms, but the community groups provide the personnel and the facilities in which to meet.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BSA should be treated like any other private group. Ask yourself if a church should get a given priviledge or benefit. If not, then the BSA shouldn't either since their membership is based on faith and adherence to a defined moral code (i.e. a church).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed equal access to schools. I know of a church that is allowed to rent a school auditorium in Maryland on Sundays for meetings. I don't even care if they rent it or are simply given the access for a specific time as long as any other private group who wishes to use the facility gets equal opportunity to do so.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed equal access to schools. I know of a church that is allowed to rent a school auditorium in Maryland on Sundays for meetings. I don't even care if they rent it or are simply given the access for a specific time as long as any other private group who wishes to use the facility gets equal opportunity to do so.
Renting is one thing, that is one way schools make some extra cash. Several Jewish congregations also in Maryland rent out high school auditoriums for the High Holidays.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't based on membership in a church. The chartering organization with the highest percentage of units are public schools.
The BSA does not rent facilities. The chartering organization provides the facilities, and they rent them if necessary. Barring the BSA from public facilities does NOT mean that the BSA will then rent some place. The BSA rents nothing. What it would do would either dissolve all the units chartered by a public school or else it would mean that the public school must rent other facilities. That would still be paid for by tax payers, only very inefficiently.
Just be aware of what you are asking. You are asking that all units sponsored by public schools be disbanded.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just be aware of what you are asking. You are asking that all units sponsored by public schools be disbanded.
I have no problem with this.
From wikipedia:
quote:Position on atheists and agnostics The Boy Scouts of America's position is that agnostics and atheists cannot participate as Scouts (youth members) or Scouters (BSA registered adult leader volunteers and salaried employees):
"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."[14] The BSA believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for boys and thus will not accept such adults as leaders. The Boy Scouts of America prohibits youths and adults who do not agree to the Scout Oath, which includes the provision of doing one's "duty to God".
If this is true, all public school chartered units should be disbanded. The BSA, while not a "church" per se, is by it's own definition a religious organization and therefore should not be supported with public funds.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My girl scout troop met at one of the leaders's home, or at the community room at an apartment complex a lot of the members lived in. The leaders were always parents of troop members. I don't remember the school being involved at all, but since I started as a Brownie, I was pretty young. I guess I don't see why it would be a disaster to disband the troops chartered by a school and reform them under a different charter.
Of course, I also don't think it would be a bad idea for schools to have a policy that their facilities can be used free of charge by groups that are primarily composed of students of the school, such as scouts of either gender, while renting them to "grown-up" organizations, such as churches. Given the exclusion of gays and atheists from troops, I would vastly prefer that schools were not involved in chartering troops, but if possible still allowed them to use available facilities as described above.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Taxes are voluntary, just not directly. We select the law makers to make the decisions for us. If we don't like federal taxes we could all vote for the libertarian party.
That's assuming that a majority has the right to appropriate the property of the minority. And I think that's taking the idea of majority rule far beyond anything ethical. Majority rule should be used to decide between two or more options that are valid. That don't harm people. When it goes beyond that into the realm of making the minority serve the majority... that's called tyranny.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What does it mean to be 'chartered' by a public school?
I'd like to know this, too, however I can't think of a single thing a "charter" could mean that would make it appropriate for a public school to "charter" a group that excludes people based on religious belief.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to pick a nit, here, ElJay, Girl Scouts is a distinct and separate organization and has different rules and policies and operates differently (not because I think it invalidates your point, just to pick the nit. Sorry.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My girl scout troop met at one of the leaders's home, or at the community room at an apartment complex a lot of the members lived in. The leaders were always parents of troop members. I don't remember the school being involved at all, but since I started as a Brownie, I was pretty young. I guess I don't see why it would be a disaster to disband the troops chartered by a school and reform them under a different charter.
Girls Scouts are a completely separate thing. They are a separate organization and they are structured differently. Girl Scouts do NOT have a charter organization. When you become a Girl Scout, you are dealing only with the Girl Scouts.
When you become a Boy Scout, you are dealing with the the charter organization AND the Boy Scouts of America. That's what makes it more complex. It isn't a simply matter of changing a rule. It is a matter of completely restructuring the organization.
I know that many people would happily eliminate it altogether. Don't be surprised if other people and the BSA itself do not share that view.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's unsurprising. But they're amazingly, colossally wrong. While I have no objection to private charters, I think public charters are a mistake and would happily prevent them from happening.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Boy Scouts of America is a "charter" based organization. The "Boy Scouts of America" has no organizational element with boys in it. All Scouting Units, "Cub Scout Packs", Boy Scout Troops", "Venture", "Explorer" or "learning for live" units are chartered by an organization like a civic club, church, parent group etc. Within the terms of the charter, the Chartering organization agrees to provide adult leadership and supervision, a meeting place, and financial support. The Boy Scouts of America agree to provide a program,(the books, badges, and suggested structure) and training for the leaders. The Chartering organization is free to use the program, all or any part of the program they think they need, to further the aims of the Chartering Organization. The BSA owns vertually no property, nor do they rent property. However, local "Councils", which have a charter from BSA to administer scouting in a geographic region often do own or lease "Scout Camps" or "Scout Stores". The BSA itself has as its basic organizational document a "Charter" from Congress. In some other countries the organization is different, with the National or a regional Organization having more "ownership" or control of individual Units. It is my understanding that the Girl Scouts of America is organized that way. It is not based on "Chartering Organizations".
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Chartering organization is free to use the program, all or any part of the program they think they need, to further the aims of the Chartering Organization.
There are limits. Every year two or three councils go far enough off the limits of it that if they continue, they can't be BSA anymore. They can still have the group and meetings and the camps, but they can't call themselves Boy Scouts anymore.
So, if the BSA bothers you, start something else instead and pitch it to the public schools.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I'd be interested in hearing from you a justification for public charters. Having worked there, I'm sure you've heard the arguments; which ones do you find compelling?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every year two or three councils go far enough off the limits of it that if they continue, they can't be BSA anymore.
I'd love to hear what some councils (no need to name names) have done that has gotten them in trouble.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know at least one council in this area was removed for permitting a homosexual scout leader.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH: Oh, gosh. *thinks* I can't remember exactly - it was more like the rumor mill. Google the Philadelphie council for the BSA and there's a story from last year that addresses this exact topic. It is usually over some hot-button issue like the present topic or the atheism thing. At least, those are the ones I hear about because unless it made the national news, it didn't make into the company newsletter. I'm sorry - I wasn't in the department that handled these incidents, so I can't tell you specifics.
Tom: And give you another chance to play Gotcha? No thank you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And give you another chance to play Gotcha? No thank you.
I'm not sure how you define "gotcha," but if you mean "give me a chance to see, understand, and reply to your arguments," then I think it's a shame that you lack the courage to converse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq and kat, I'm well aware girl and boy scouts are completely different organizations, run completely differently. My point was that a children's scouting organization can function perfectly well without having to meet at a school.
"I guess I don't see why it would be a disaster to disband the troops chartered by a school and reform them under a different charter."
I'm not even saying they would have to completely restructure the organization. There are plenty of other organizations that charter troops besides schools, aren't there? Churches, chambers of commerce, and the like? So if public schools couldn't charter anymore, yes, those troops would have to be disbanded. And then they could reform almost immediately chartered by a different organization. I'm assuming the announcement would be made that this was going to happen early enough to allow plenty of time to find a new sponsoring organization. Because when it gets down to it, I bet the parents do a heck of a lot more to support the troop than the school does, for school chartered troops. I certainly remember my mom being a den mother for my brother's cub scout troop. If there are kids who want to be involved, and parents who want there kids to be involved, there will be an organization to charter the troop. Particularly if it's an existing troop that just needs to move to a different organization.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And then they could reform almost immediately chartered by a different organization.
The largest group that sponsors charters is public schools. The membership in community groups of ALL kinds has plummeted the last few decades.
I think it's easy to say "Someone else will do it." Generally, someone won't.
If you want to disallow the largest chartering organization from doing so, at least acknowledge the likely effects of that action.
The Girl Scouts is a fraction of the size of the BSA, and it's losing members and money faster. (All volunteer organizations of every kind are losing members and money - yay for television.) Sadly, people don't automatically step up.
Tom: Courage I have. Willingness I do not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
*shrug* It's not shameful to refuse to engage in conversation on a topic you feel insecure about. Blaming the other person for your insecurity, however, is a personal failing.
I have no doubt that many good arguments for public chartering of private religious organizations can be made. I've seen a few that I have not considered good, and am sure that you -- having worked for an organization particularly affected by this principle -- have seen many more justifications than I have. It's entirely possible that you have seen some that I might consider compelling, or even logically consistent, in ways that the arguments I have already seen are not.
Barring your participation, then, the status quo remains: that I have never seen a compelling argument for public sponsorship of private religious organizations made here, or anywhere else.
If you are unable or unwilling to make such an argument, that's fine. But it's not my fault that you choose not to try.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother belonged to a public school Cub Scout pack. If the boys did not believe in God or otherwise did not want to reference God in oaths, etc., they were allowed to just omit the reference to God, like we were allowed to do with the Pledge of Alleigance.
Does that mean that the pack could have gotten in trouble for that? 'Cause they didn't.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are unable or unwilling to make such an argument, that's fine. But it's not my fault that you choose not to try.
If she's unwilling to do so based on your previous actions, then you are at least partly responsible.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If she's unwilling to do so based on your previous actions, then you are at least partly responsible.
I maintain that my previous actions have nothing to do with it. She's welcome to argue to the contrary (ideally over email, since this is rather OT), but I'd like to see her try.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm as secure and brave as they come, but it is not worth it to me to present my views to you for a discussion. Your previous actions have everything to do with it.
Added: But by all means keep insulting me. I'll bet that will be persuasive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder which actions those would be? The ones where I persistently defended your character to people who were convinced that you were rude, argumentative, and passive-aggressive? Or the ones where I hung out with you quite pleasantly for hours? Or the countless civil conversations we've had on topics ranging from movies to our personal perceptions of God?
Seriously, Katie, you've had a stick up there for a few months now, and it's really time to pull it out and either hurl it away or throw it at me. This waddling-around you're doing is tiresome. To be completely honest with you, I have no freakin' idea why you've been so brittle lately, and would love to have that conversation with you when you're willing. (And ideally not here, for obvious reasons.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will happily and delightedly hang out with you. You're a great deal of fun. I will not present my views to you for discussion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the grounds that I might have the temerity to disagree with them?
Seriously, if I said something uncharitable that you've been carrying a grudge about for a few months now, drop me an email or something and let me know. I'm perfectly aware that I've got more of a sense of detachment in these conversations than some people do, so I'm cognizant of the possibility that I trampled a sacred cow. But without knowing which cow it was, I can't exactly apologize effectively.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I will happily and delightedly hang out with you. You're a great deal of fun. I will not present my views to you for discussion.
This precisely describes my feelings on the matter as well, Tom. It's not just Katie.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say the largest group that sponsors charters is public schools, what percentage of the total is that? I think you said 1/3 in the other thread, but obviously I can't check. From just saying it's the largest group, that could mean it sponsors 10% of the troops, and 90% are sponsored by smaller independant organizations.
But say it's 33%. Or 100%. Yes, I acknowledge some troops might not find a sponsoring organization to recharter. Honestly, if that's the price we have to pay, I'm fine with it. I don't believe that the percentage that won't is anywhere near what you apparently do, but even if none of them manage to reform -- as long as the BSA position is that atheist, agnostic, and homosexual boys cannot participate I do not think it's appropriate to have them sponsored by public schools. How can you say public schools are for everyone, let them sponsor a fun, valuable, educational program, and tell some kids they can't participate?
I'm even fine with the troops sponsored by churches and other organazations continuing to disallow atheist and gay members. But not schools.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not taking potshots here.
