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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bigot!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
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. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
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.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Does BSA get tax money?
I'm not saying it doesn't. I just haven't heard of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
mph wrote:
quote: 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.
Well there's SOMETHING we can agree on at least!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
What are the chartering organization's responsibilities to the BSA?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
At first I had mixed emotions, now I agree with you Karl.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What does it mean to be 'chartered' by a public school?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You are asking that all units sponsored by public schools be disbanded.
I am of course perfectly okay with this.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Good luck. Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
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".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know at least one council in this area was removed for permitting a homosexual scout leader.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: Courage I have. Willingness I do not.
*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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's not a grudge. I'm not taking potshots here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:and tell some kids they can't participate?
Of course they can participate. They just have to convert to the True Faith (tm) first!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Seconds ElJay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. So you're calling for the dissolution for the Boy Scouts. Does that explain the opposition you're facing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The opposition isn't surprising. Any group that has been unfairly privileged is going to kick up a fuss when that privilege is threatened.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, do you really feel that the Boy Scouts requires special privileges to survive? That seems to be what you're saying, but I disagree with you and am surprised to hear it from you.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Wow, now that I've missed a page of discussion on this I'm feeling left behind.
1. I agree that publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units. Or, in other words, I'm with TomDavidson on this one.
2. When it comes to public facilities and properties, the BSA and every other private organization, should enjoy the same rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: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.
Ding ding ding!
The problem is that when "acceptable" (however we want to define that) organizations get public money and unacceptable (same caveat) organizations don't, the unacceptable ones have been burdened, sometimes in significant ways.
The BSA was the beneficiary of this for years. Now it's starting to get justified pushback. however, I think the justification is based on exclusivity, not the BSA program content itself.
What I don't want is some generic camping/hiking/crafts/activities organization to get public money and Scouts not to. Alternatively, if the public wants to fund camping/hiking/crafts/activities groups, then the funding should be available to those that add a moral stance to the mix as well as those that don't - on an equal, per kid basis.
Making facilities available is even easier. Simply make the park/campsite/craft room available to groups with kids between the ages of X and Y. Find a way to schedule fairly and stay out of the content of the programs. (Safety, noise, neatness, convenience - i.e., non-content-based - rules are fine.
I'm not ready to agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units" until someone can tell me what "charter" means in this context. I can agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units if they won't provide the benefits that chartering brings to similar groups."
I can think of a hundred acceptable ways to give Scouts access to school facilities without creating official sanction for religion that violates the First Amendment or discriminating in a way that violates the 14th.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: 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.*
Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
quote: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.
This might sound nit picky, but a belief in God certainly does not equate to siding with one organized religion. Civic Religion is well within the bounds of the first ammendmant, look at the pledge of allegiance. Now you may disagree that people should be required to say, "under God" in the first place, all I am arguing is that with todays zeit geist the Boy Scouts are operating within the realms of civic religion and its constitutional for the government to work with them in that state.
I would not suprise me though if it could be demonstrated that if you had a Boy Scout with a belief in God that they would still experience persecution and that the BSA are not in fact practicing a seperate but equal docterine in regards to a belief in God.
I expect a Brown V Board of Education equivalent case eventually that will totally distance BSA from the government. Perhaps in a Utilitarian sense its unfortunate that it will be so, but from a deontological perspective it makes sense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
Agreed, but the quotee was stating that no group should discriminate for any reason and still get funding from the public.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Many people wouldn't consider it discriminating to preclude people who can't perform a job. There are two uses of the word: making distinctions, and making irrelevant distinctions. I think it's clear which use was intended.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay. So you're calling for the dissolution for the Boy Scouts. Does that explain the opposition you're facing?
No, I'm not. Or are you telling me that 100% of Boy Scout troops are chartered by public schools?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Incidentally, I'd like to know how your "rephrasing" of what I said into something completely different is any less objectionable than what you accuse Tom of doing with your opinions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*blink* I'm skipping the second post. I didn't deserve that.
For the first one, enough of a porportion of chartered units are chartered by public schools that dissolving them would cripple the BSA. Take away access to all public buildings as well, and you're asking a troop of say 50 to rent a building at market price once a week while charging the boys only $10 a year. Either the troop dissolves or it is no longer cheap (it's not really cheap now, what with the uniforms and camps) to be a Boy Scout. Sure something would replace it, but probably just to the relatively-wealthy families.
The BSA would not survive in any recognizable form or numbers. Maybe that's what people want. I think that'd be a loss.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But other private groups deal with those problems. Why should the BSA get special treatment?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a loss for other groups as well. I think we are worse off because people don't gather in community groups anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BTW, I don't want to see the BSA dissolved. I would love to see it stop discriminating on the basis of religion. Barring that, I would want to see it have to face the same challenges and have the same freedoms that other religious group face and have.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
You grew up relatively-wealthy, right? That's probably why. The groups meeting in public schools are not meeting in Highland Park.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's a loss for other groups as well. I think we are worse off because people don't gather in community groups anymore.
Not quite sure I understand...are you saying that religious groups should be publicly funded?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
You grew up relatively-wealthy, right? That's probably why. The groups meeting in public schools are not meeting in Highland Park.
Erm. I'm talking about the neighborhood Boy/Girl Scouts. There were some at my private school, yes. But every time I met anyone who was a scout, they met at a church.
I kind of think I should step out of this thread because I'm a bit wary of it turning into "u dun knoe me u r a snob." I was just pointing out that there ARE alternatives. Like churches.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. Yes, that's it. Despite what I've been saying all along, what I'm actually meant is something completely different that you can easily refute.
pH: Public schools are the largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops overall. You don't know any. Clearly either my facts are mistaken or else your experience is not comprehensive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes. Yes, that's it. Despite what I've been saying all along, what I'm actually meant is something completely different that you can easily refute.
kat, all I was asking for was an answer to what is a loss for other groups. I was guessing the what was public funding - and asking if that was what you meant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, Katie, I'm asking why you think the Boy Scouts deserve special treatment.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't know if this is what Kat thinks, but if I had to suggest a hypothetical reason, it would be that its positive value as a group outweighs the presumed negative value associated with the special treatment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If that is true, it is only a positive value for some people. And then only if we don't consider the negative value of religious discrimination
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *blink* I'm skipping the second post. I didn't deserve that.
I offered several different alternatives to allow the organization to continue without changing its organization, and you said I wanted to dissolve the Boy Scouts. It felt to me like you either didn't read my posts or were being intentionally obnoxious.
quote: Take away access to all public buildings as well, and you're asking a troop of say 50 to rent a building at market price once a week while charging the boys only $10 a year.
No, I'm not. I said schools could still allow free use of their facilities to groups made up of students. (ANY groups.) I also suggested alternatives such as meeting at apartment community rooms or a leader's home, the second of which would admitedly only work for smaller troops. And finally, I said that I believe most of those troops would find other sponsors, which would then provide meeting space. That's a far, far cry from what you're accusing me of.
quote: The BSA would not survive in any recognizable form or numbers.
That's your opinion. I think you have an unrealistically low view of how resourceful people are. Including poor people. Besides, isn't the Boy Scouts supposed to teach resourcefulness, courage, and problem-solving? Don't you have faith that the people in the program and the people who've gone through the program would be able to deal with this sort of change, especially if they had plenty of advance notice and perhaps a helpful packet from the national organization giving suggestions on where to start looking for new sponsorship?
quote:Maybe that's what people want. I think that'd be a loss.
That's not what I want. I think I've been very clear that I think scouting is valuable, and that there are ways beyond the current mold that it can work. I deeply resent being told that I'm calling for something that I never said, and it being implied multiple times that I just don't know what I'm talking about. No, I don't know as much about the current structure of the boy scouts as you do. But I do know enough about how the world works to know there are possibilities and opportunities out there that you are completely dismissing, prematurely and unfairly.
Community centers offer space for free to community groups who want to meet there. Many non-profits who are active in inner city communities do, too, at least in my city. My church has taken advantage of soem of them, as we do not have a building. Churches have space. Some businesses that rent space might be willing to donate it to the group as a tax write off.
Or, of course, the BSA could decide to let all Americans participate. I don't even care if they don't let gay people be leaders, as far as letting public schools sponsor charters. But any kid who wants to participate needs to be allowed to participate, and participate fully, or it's absolutely ridiculous to expect a public school in America to be actively involved in the organization.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My husband was an Eagle Scout. We are planning on getting our son involved in Scouts, and I respect the organization immensely and would hate to see it disappear.
Kat, I hope you're willing to answer my questions, because I value your expertise here and I promise I'm not trying to play "gotcha." But I am confused.
You said:
quote:No. BSA funding comes from private sources.
Yet, the quotation from Artemisia is this (emphasis mine):
quote:Within the terms of the charter, the Chartering organization agrees to provide adult leadership and supervision, a meeting place, and financial support.
That seems to suggest that the chartering organization, for our discussion purposes a public school, provides some sort of financial support which contradicts your earlier statement. Can you elaborate?
And so you know where I stand, I think BSA should have access to public school facilities, but only if equal access is available for other groups. If an atheist parent organization wants to start a camping/outdoors club they should be allowed to meet at the schools as well, and BSA should not receive any preferential treatment the other group doesn't receive.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Again, Katie, I'm asking why you think the Boy Scouts deserve special treatment.
I think that they provide a community good. It's not perfect, and it's a little bigoted, but for the most part, the BSA is a worthy institution. We pick and choose our poisons and virtues, and the BSA is one that America should, on the whole, be proud of and support, kind of like the NEA.
[ October 20, 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If that is true, it is only a positive value for some people.
Sure. I didn't suggest otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And then only if we don't consider the negative value of religious discrimination.
Adding the negative value of religious discrimination wouldn't necessarily inherently make the net value negative for everyone. I'm surprised that you explicitly qualified my hypothetical but did not qualify your own.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know if I know how to set a negative value amount on discrimination. I should have said, "It is only a positive value for some people (others don't get to experience it- except as the negative of being rejected). And even for those people we aren't considering the negative value of being taught religious discrimination (which may or may not negate the positive - I think it does; others might disagree). We also aren't considering the negative value on the community of reinforcing the idea of religious discrimination - which again may or may not be offset by the positives (again I would argue that it isn't.)"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I haven't suggested that it's even possible to set absolute positive or negative values. What I have suggested is basically what Irami said: it's possible, and not inherently unreasonable, to believe that the BSA is "worth it."
As an aside, I was a Cub Scout. I'm pretty sure it didn't teach me religious discrimination.
I feel a bit like Dagonee today, proposing hypothetical arguments in support of multiple positions on multiple threads that I don't actually hold. </random>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, it is certainly possible that it is a net positive for those who aren't among those discriminated against.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Would you contend that it is a net negative for all of those who are discriminated against? I ask because I wouldn't, which I think is the first direct statement of personal opinion that I've made on this forum today.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have one question for now. Those who are calling the BSA a "religious organization," would you label Masons the same?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kmboots, I'm not even sure I would have survived the Boy Scouts, as I have a bit of an independent streak and an aversion to violence, even Christian violence like the military, and I'm just seditious enough to encourage others.
quote:We also aren't considering the negative value on the community of reinforcing the idea of religious discrimination - which again may or may not be offset by the positives (again I would argue that it isn't.)
Actually, I am factoring that in, I'm just willing to look the other way about it. The NEA, PBS, and Sports Teams all alienate and discrimminate, but without them, I think that the world would be a poorer place.
Occasional, come on, even the Boy Scouts call themselves a religious organization. Don't burn what good will I have towards your organization by showing yourself to be a git.
[ October 20, 2006, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
This is for BlackBlade, from earlier in the thread:
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
quote: There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
quote: Agreed, but the quotee was stating that no group should discriminate for any reason and still get funding from the public.
Dagonee is correct in this assessment. I never mentioned the military in my argument, and it doesn't apply; as a government entity, it fits a special purpose.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If the BSA, AA, and other organizations that talk about God are cast out of schools and libraries, does that become discrimination of a form?
I don't really think AA is likely to, because they have a studiedly vague definition of "a Higher Power". But there are still those who manage to find it offensive.
I mean, I could argue that as a person who has never drunk it offends me that my public facilities are used for AA. I would be contradictory and wrong-headed in such a thought, but it is something I would have been capable of at some point intersecting with my ability to vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Would you contend that it is a net negative for all of those who are discriminated against? I ask because I wouldn't, which I think is the first direct statement of personal opinion that I've made on this forum today.
I suppose it would depend on the person. If it is a net positive for those that are "in" it would put those who are out at a disadvantage. They wouldn't get to make the same social connections, they would be at a disadvantage in Army careers, tying knots could remain forever a mystery. On the other hand they would have all this free time while all their friends are camping. There could be an emotional toll - they could spend a lot of time being hurt for being excluded to the point of self-despising - thinking that the group was right to exclude them. I know people who have experienced this. Of course, for the very strong, that could be a character building experience.
Sorry - I have to go now. I would be interested in your reasoning, but I'll have to wait till Monday.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Don't burn what good will I have towards your organization by showing yourself to be a git."
Although I am an Eagle Scout, I am not as enamored to the organization as you seem to imply. I asked a simple question to see how people are defining things. And, for the record, I have never heard it called a "religious organization" until now. Seriously.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I suppose it would depend on the person. If it is a net positive for those that are "in" it would put those who are out at a disadvantage.
Basically, Kate, I don't accept this. There are valuable things children can do with their time that do not involve being in the Boy Scouts; not being in the Boy Scouts is not an inherent disadvantage in life. In fact, I think suggesting otherwise attributes even more value to the Boy Scouts than I would place on them in my hypothetical argument.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm not ready to agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units" until someone can tell me what "charter" means in this context. I can agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units if they won't provide the benefits that chartering brings to similar groups."
Technically, the chartering organization owns the troop. If the troop dissolves, all its assets go to the chartering organization.
A chartering organization can do a lot for/with the troop, or it can do next to nothing. The cub scout pack my son was in was chartered by the local fire department, which gave us $150 and a signature once a year. Nothing more. But the pack met at the local elementary school until the mid '90s.
The troop I grew up in was chartered by a local church, but met in my elementary school. The church provided storage for our equipment, so that's where we always left from when we went on an outing. I wasn't aware of any presence of church leadership in our troop. The church has always been on the recieving end of service projects, however. Nowadays my old troop meets at the church, because they aren't allowed to meet at the school anymore.
quote:pH: Public schools are the largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops overall. You don't know any. Clearly either my facts are mistaken or else your experience is not comprehensive.
I'm pretty sure your facts are mistaken. The two largest sponsors of BSA troops are the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. I think schools are just the most common meeting place.
Now, there's also another charter we have to consider. So far we've been talking about the charting of UNITS (troops and packs). But the BSA itself is "chartered" by congress. I've never found a good definition of what that means. The President of the United States is also the honorary head of the organization.
I've never experienced anti-gay or anti-atheist discrimination within the packs/troops I've been involved in. And there are entire districts that have tried to disregard the national leadership's position, by publicly allowing gays and atheists to be members. Of course they get their knuckles rapped by national and have to decide whether to stay in the scouts, or leave and join Scouting for All The problem lies with national, really.
Bear in mind, most of this wasn't an issue before about 1985. There were plenty of openly atheist scouts and scout leaders before that time, and the scout handbook specifically stated that it was a scout's duty to defend the beliefs of people with no religious belief. Prior to 1985 it didn't matter if you were an atheist, as long as you were willing to sign the declaration of religious principles (and they said so).
With gays it was different, because before a certain point society simply accepted (with no formal policy as such) that you wouldn't allow a gay man around boys. But back then most gays were closeted. I'm sure there were plenty of gay scoutleaders, but they didn't try to assert their right to be openly gay.
My own feeling is that the Boy Scout program is such a good program that it's a shame that the national leadership has been co-opted by religious bigots. I'd like to see it healed.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Again, just to clarify, the Chartering Organization is expected to furnish financial assistance to the Scout Unit. However, in my experience, most units that are chartered to "pubilc schools" are actually chartered by a PTA or PTO or by a Teachers group ect. the PTA or PTO provides the financial backing. There are philanthropical organizations that provide funding for Scout programs in "challanged" public schools. Sometimes they provide the funds and a school administrator signs the Charter. But, that is not the norm.
EDIT: Several years ago, the National PTA recommended that the individual PTA's not charter Scout units, because of the liability that the Chartering Organization has when they provide the leaders. The "Chartering Organization Head" has to sign the application for each and every adult leader certifying that he or she has checked the prospective leaders background and is satisfied that they are OK to work with kids.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Bear in mind, most of this wasn't an issue before about 1985. There were plenty of openly atheist scouts and scout leaders before that time, and the scout handbook specifically stated that it was a scout's duty to defend the beliefs of people with no religious belief. Prior to 1985 it didn't matter if you were an atheist, as long as you were willing to sign the declaration of religious principles (and they said so).
Isn't this a bit like saying "It didn't matter if you were Christian, as long as you were willing to openly declare that there is no god?"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KoM:
As far as joining the organization was concerned. What happened in 1985 was that Rob Sherman refused to sign the DRP and insisted that the enrollment form be changed. BSA said if you want to be in the organization, you have to sign the form as is. Sherman sued and lost.
BTW, the DRP doesn't say there's a god, it says that you have to accept the BSA's position that religion is an essential component to being a good citizen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Public money paid for the school buildings. I am in favor of letting anyone use them in approved ways (as Dag said -- controls should be on how they take care of the space, not on the purpose of their meeting). Religious or otherwise, as long as they don't burn things, etc.
I view it as pretty much the same thing as a band-shell in a park. Anyone who wants to can reserve it. If the facilities have to be unlocked or someone has to be there from the Parks Department to run lights, unlock doors, etc., there should be a modest fee schedule to cover it all, and everyone pays the same fees.
I'm not sure what "chartering" a club entails, but I am uncomfortable with a public institution, like a school, or police department, or fire department, sponsoring a group which does not adhere to the same non-discrimination practices as its parent organization.
This obviously could vary from community to community, but I'm okay with that because it's going to be community money going towards the activities, no? So...if the community bans discrimination against gays, then any public money should go toward sponsoring or chartering a group that cannot agree to the same policy.
Same deal with religious discrimination...
I think that would make it impossible for any public school to sponsor a BSA troop if the BSA requires belief in God of its members or leaders.
To be frank, I'm a little uncomfortable with this knowing that my church sponsors a BSA troop. I think we do it to help out disadvantaged kids in our neighborhood. So...in reality, I'm a little torn on the whole thing. I think the anti-homosexual policies of the BSA are at odds with the "open doors, open minds" policy of the Methodist Church. The church, however, as a denomination (and within Iowa) is still struggling with the homosexuality issue -- at least with respect to clergy (we've got no problem with church members, afik). I would be really upset, however, if a professed atheist were turned away from membership in our church-sponsored troop. We wouldn't turn away an atheist from attending services at our church, so why should we allow a group to use our space if they can't abide by the same rules that we do as a church?
The reason I'm torn is that we are an inner-city parish and I think the Scouts do help kids. I think the kids who are helped the most are probably the ones from disadvantaged backgrounds, or those with bad home lives. If they can find in scouting a source of solid socializing influences, and role models of people with stable home lives who aspire to something more than the dead ends that many of these kids find themselves in...then it's a heck of a lot better than nothing...
So, I'll probably not object openly to having a Scout troop using our space. It's probably a net good for the community. I don't like BSA's policies in one or two areas, but I like their effects overall.
I probably won't donate directly to the organization.
I wonder though. If John ever expresses a wish to join the Scouts, I would not discourage him. I think it'd be fun. And (as I said in the other thread) I would go along on camping trips, etc.). I like the people I've met here locally who are scout leaders. But at least while he's young, I wouldn't let John go on a camping trip without at least one of his parents there.
Same with church trips... but then, dkw's likely to be on those already anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure what "chartering" a club entails, but I am uncomfortable with a public institution, like a school, or police department, or fire department, sponsoring a group which does not adhere to the same non-discrimination practices as its parent organization.
This idea has been expressed several times, so I'm curious: do people who think this also think that single-sex scouting organizations should be ineligible for public sponsorship?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the BSA itself is "chartered" by congress. I've never found a good definition of what that means. The President of the United States is also the honorary head of the organization.
I'd like to see a good definition of that.
Many people don't know this, but, until general incorporation laws began to be passed, all corporations were "chartered" by the legislature. There was no other way to make one. Even though chartered by the legislature, they were always been recognized as private institutions. The Supreme Court ruled in the Dartmouth College Case that such charters were contracts, not subject to retroactive change by the legislature. Presumably this meant revocation as well.
Later charters included standard reservation of powers to modify in order to circumvent this case. But the act of a public law chartering a private entity was commonplace for much of our history.
So I would really like to know more about the BSA charter before deciding whether it is a public entity or not.
I'd guess it's not based on what I know now, but that's only a guess.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, triple posting here, but the Charter can be found here by putting in these criteria:
Title: 36 Subtitle: II Part: B Chapter: 309
And clicking "Search." This is public domain (it's a U.S. Statute) so I'm pasting it here:
quote:36 USC CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 01/19/04
-EXPCITE- TITLE 36 - PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS Subtitle II - Patriotic and National Organizations Part B - Organizations CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
-HEAD- CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
-MISC1- Sec. 30901. Organization. 30902. Purposes. 30903. Governing body. 30904. Powers. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words. 30906. Restrictions. 30907. Annual and special meetings. 30908. Annual report.
Sec. 30901. Organization
(a) Federal Charter. - Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the "corporation") is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia. (b) Domicile. - The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia. (c) Perpetual Existence. - Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.
Sec. 30902. Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.
Sec. 30903. Governing body
(a) Executive Board. - An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. The number, qualifications, and term of office of members of the board are as provided in the bylaws. A vacancy on the board shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board. (b) Quorum. - The bylaws may prescribe the number of members of the board necessary for a quorum. That number may be less than a majority of the entire board. (c) Committees. - (1) The board, by resolution passed by a majority of the entire board, may designate 3 or more members of the board as an executive or governing committee. A majority of the committee is a quorum. The committee, to the extent provided in the resolution or bylaws, may - (A) exercise the powers of the executive board in managing the activities of the corporation; and (B) authorize the seal of the corporation to be affixed to papers that may require it.
(2) The board, by majority vote of the entire board, may appoint other standing committees. The standing committees may exercise powers as provided in the bylaws.
Sec. 30904. Powers
(a) General. - The corporation may - (1) adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, including regulations for the election of associates and successors; (2) adopt and alter a corporate seal; (3) have offices and conduct its activities in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States; (4) acquire and own property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation; (5) sue and be sued within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (6) do any other act necessary to carry out this chapter and promote the purpose of the corporation.
(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers. - (1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose. (2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.
Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
Sec. 30906. Restrictions
(a) Profit. - The corporation may not operate for pecuniary profit to its members. (b) Stocks and Dividends. - The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.
Sec. 30907. Annual and special meetings
(a) Annual Meetings. - The corporation shall hold an annual meeting at a time and place as provided in the bylaws. At the meeting, the annual reports of the officers and executive board shall be presented, and members of the board shall be elected for the next year.
(b) Special Meetings. - Special meetings of the corporation may be called on notice as provided in the bylaws. (c) Quorum. - The number of members necessary for a quorum at an annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the bylaws. (d) Locations. - The members and the executive board may hold meetings and keep the seal and records of the corporation in or outside the District of Columbia.
Sec. 30908. Annual report
Not later than April 1 of each year, the corporation shall submit a report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior calendar year.
This looks like a standard corporate charter, no real special privileges.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I just have to say thanks to this thread for inspiring me to call my Dad and then have one of the coolest conversations I've ever had with him.
I just basically told him about the thread(s) and then we started talking about the subtopics in them and he was giving me so much information and getting so into it that I really loved it.
So thanks.
On a total side-note - I interuppted him and my Mom watching 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'. Wow - my parents are cooler than I ever knew. Only took me almost 27 years to realize it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But at least while he's young, I wouldn't let John go on a camping trip without at least one of his parents there.
Bob, When I was a scout leader, the official policy was that boys under 12 (I think) could not attend over night camp unless one of their parents came along so your policy is right in line with BSA police. This policy often caused us some personal conflict because disadvantaged boys (particularly those in single parent familes) were less likely to have a parent who could come, yet they were often the ones who might benefit most from coming.
My feelings about BSA are pretty close to Bob's overall. I've worked with the Boy Scouts. I am (or perhaps was) a trained BSA leader. I appreciate many aspects of the program including the emphasis on community service, personal achievement and conservation and outdoor recreation. I think that the program is particularly benficial to boys who are economically disadvantaged or come from marginally functional families because it provides them with many wholesome opportunities they would otherwise miss.
I am also very disturbed by the exclusionary nature of the program. It doesn't bother me particularly for BSA to exclude adult leaders who don't share the programs values, but it does bother me if they exclude boys who are atheist, agnostic or gay. To the extent that BSA is a private organization, I support its right to limit its membership in any way it desires but if it does so, it should not expect to receive public support.
If a public school charter for a scout troop includes spending tax payer dollars to support the troop, then the troops should be required to follow public school rules. If a public school excluded children because they were atheists or gay, it would be utterly unacceptable. I think that applies to every official school activity. If the school football team excluded players based on religion, it would be unacceptable even if the team was funded 100% by donations rather than tax payers.
If public school sponsorship simply means that BSA is a school club, allowed to use the school building and run by volunteer parents and other community members and funded by private donations, I don't see a problem. If on the other hands, the BSA gets money from the school budget and teachers of school staff are paid for the time the spend on BSA stuff, that crosses a line which in my mind shouldn't be crossed.
To say that we must choose between allowing public schools to sponsor BSA troops that require descrimination on the basis of religion and/or sexual orientation or loose all the benefits that come to the community from these troops presents a false dichotomy.
The other options is that BSA could allow the chartering organizations to opt out of these requirements. Private chartering organizations that agree with those values, could continue to require faith and heterosexual orientation in their members. But Troops sponsored by public schools, military bases and fire departments would be open to all members of the community. If BSA thinks that the benefits it offers the community are that important, they could accept this compromise rather than giving up the public resources they receive.
If they think the stand they are making on faith and sexual morality is critical to their mission, then they must be prepared to opporate without public (i.e. tax payer resources).
[ November 01, 2006, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree 100% with Rabbit's post.
I was going to add something else, but it's unnecessary, she covered it all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No one ever answered my question about my brother's Cub Scout Pack... Anyone? I'm really curious now.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rabbit -- great post.
ketchupqueen -- you might want to e-mail katharina directly. It sounds like it might be a touchy subject and really, there aren't that many people here who could even venture a guess on that score.
My opinion of it is that the group must've violated some BSA rule and probably should have been in discussions with the parent organization over it...
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Forbidding private organizations from using public property would mean there can be no private organizations. At least, they can't go anywhere, since the roads and the airports are public property. They can't do any legal transactions, since courthouses are public property. The government takes the position (not as well defined) that the airwaves are public property, so this not only puts an end to religious broadcasting, it puts an end to all radio and broadcast TV except NPR and PBS.
If we want more freedom, we won't try to ban private activity in public space. This is something people do selectively to take freedom away from others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure people are referring to exclusive use of controlled-access public places.
For example, a classroom reserved by a group is barred to non-members of the group during the time it is in use. Further, no one is allowed in that classroom without permission, whether implied or explicit.
Contrast this to a park, where an individual can come and go as one sees fits during the hours the park is open. No group can exclude others (legally).
Sometimes parks are set aside for exclusive use. This would generally require a permit, fee, and/or reservation. Absent one of those, it is a non-controlled access public place.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: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.
When I was a child my troop allowed me to do that, but it was before 1985. Even for a while into the '90s I think national still said that if atheists wanted to join all they had to do was sign the drp. Now, though, they have started to require questions during boards of review that force scouts to admit their state of belief, or lie. My son was quite worried about this during his Eagle Scout board of review, although he was not calling himself an atheist at the time, his actual beliefs could have raised red flags. That was a few years ago. I don't know how much more stringent they have become, but I'm also sure there are plenty of troops that are quietly defiant.
A few years ago there were troops and entire districts that informed National that they were allowing gays and atheists as members, but they were told they'd lose their membership if they didn't retract the policy. Some troops folded, or joined Scouting for All, but I think all the districts capitulated when the supreme court ruling came through.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
In such a case, banning BSA from school grounds would indeed be like banning private groups from reserving the park shelters. And, of course, evicting 4H and the Chess Club from school grounds; and the Wesleyan Center and the Newman Club from state college campuses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In such a case, banning BSA from school grounds would indeed be like banning private groups from reserving the park shelters.
Yes, but I'm not sure who's advocated that. Can you quote the person who did so - I missed it.
Posted by BrianWestley (Member # 9836) on :
Public schools USED to be the Boy Scouts' largest chartering partner; they no longer are.
Early in 2005, the ACLU sent a letter to the BSA about the legal problems with public schools and other government entities chartering Packs & Troops; the BSA agreed to re-charter all such units, and to not issue such charters in the future: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2005/03/national_boy_scout_organizatio.shtml The BSA has rechartered most of these (though a few hundred still remain).
Plus, a correction - Scouting For All is not a scouting program, it's an advocacy organization that's trying to convince the BSA to change its membership policies.
Disclaimer: I'm the assistant director, midwest region, of Scouting For All, and I worked with the Illinois ACLU on the issue of public school BSA charters.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
thanks, Brian for that link and information. And Welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Hey Merlyn! Haven't seen you in a while.
Welcome to Hatrack!
Are there figures for scout membership from previous years for comparison? Seems like I remember one of BSA's arguments for keeping atheists out was that if they let us godless heathens in they would have a decline in membership.
Posted by BrianWestley (Member # 9836) on :
Hey Glenn, I'm still in rec.scouting.issues too...
http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html has a comparison of BSA membership over the last 20 years (though their prerelease figures for 2005 don't match the BSA's "official" numbers, and I don't know why).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Crappy site. The numbers may be correct, but the interpretation is biased and ignorant of the decline in membership of ALL community groups.
quote:Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values--these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness.
Posted by BrianWestley (Member # 9836) on :
No, bsa-discrimination.org is not a "crappy site"; as you say, the numbers are correct, and other similar groups (notably the Girl Scouts) have not experienced a similar decline. The BSA's dramatic membership slide coincides with their very public expulsion of gays and atheists.
You can also search the web and find a lot of people, including former BSA members, who have walked away from the BSA for their stance against gay and atheist scouts, and who will not allow their boys to join. The BSA's membership drop isn't just a general drop in participation in social clubs -- it has a lot to do with their new public perception as a private, discriminatory, religious organization. Their membership figures are reasonably flat from 1991 to 2000 (the year of Dale vs. BSA), then they fall sharply.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have a few thoughts....keep in mind that I was a Life scout (one step before Eagle), and am currently a Mason. I don't claim special knowledge of either, other than my personal experiences, though.
Masons ARE a religious group, although not a religion. You HAVE to believe in God in order to become a Mason, and to stay one.
What God you believe in doesn't matter to them at all. Islam, Christian, Hindu...there are Masonic chapters that follow each religion, and many others of course, but we all all Masonic Brothers regardless of specific religion.
As far as I know, Scouting is like that as well. You don't have to belong to any specific religion, but you do have to believe in God. I know that from 1979 to 1986 I was involved in several phases of Scouting, and once I got to Boy Scouts they did as me about my religious beliefs. God was mentioned at almost every dinner when we had a formal grace, and when camping we usually had a silent moment for prayer.
The BSA defined itself as a religious organization for it's argument before SCOTUS, and that is part of why it won, so I think it IS fair to use that definition to argue points both for and against Scouting.
I know that in our area, if a group chartered an organization they didn't use public monies to do so. We were chartered by the local Fire Station, but the firefighters themselves paid the $150 we got from their own pockets, and they had fund raisers for us on occasion for camping equipment...but no public monies went to us at all.
I would encourage public schools to allow the use of their facilities for Scouting, as long as the Scouts paid the same fees as any other group renting the space.
[ November 01, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Hey Glenn, I'm still in rec.scouting.issues too...
I knew you through alt.atheism, although I guess most of the posts were heavily crossposted.
quote:You don't have to belong to any specific religion, but you do have to believe in God.
Even weirder, the BSA doesn't allow themselves to be cornered into any specific definition of God, which pretty much makes their stance meaningless to begin with. As one BSA leader said, "You can believe that cheese is God."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is pretty much what I remembered too....and to be honest,the Masons are a little like that as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Even weirder, the BSA doesn't allow themselves to be cornered into any specific definition of God, which pretty much makes their stance meaningless to begin with. As one BSA leader said, "You can believe that cheese is God."
This is what makes BSA claim that promoting belief in God is central to their mission so strange. If they are willing to accept people with every flavor of religious belief, pagans, christians, hindu's and even scientologists -- why would it be so detrimental to their program if they allowed athiests to join?
To me, it makes no sense.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When I was still in scouting, my explanation for why I was willing to sign the DRP was that to me:
"God is a concept that other people believe in. Those believers associate this concept with certain basic moral principles that I agree with."
Without attempting to define all those moral principles, I can say that as a general rule I strongly agree with the values inherent in the scouting program.
Since I believe that the concept of God exists, and since I agree with those certain moral principles, I have no problem signing the DRP.
If the scouts would accept my definition of God, I would still be in scouting, but at this point, they've made it clear that my definition isn't adequate, if for no other reason but that I call myself an atheist.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I will not present my views to you for discussion. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not taking potshots here.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)