Hunt

Another student who helped others was identified as an Eagle Scout in some of the articles:

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/south/view.bg?articleid=195363

"Hunt, I've seen you and other people mischaracterize the ACLU as acting that they are getting revenge because they "lost" the Dale case, but I've never seen you nor anyone else suggest why the ACLU should ignore the issues that are raised by the BSA being a private, discriminatory, religious organization considering all the government entanglement with this supposedly private club. You were not at all concerned that the BSA's largest unit sponsor (public schools) could no way legally charter ANY units of a private, discriminatory religious club, yet you were quick enough to criticize efforts to simply have public schools obey the law. All of this is fallout from the Dale decision."

Merlyn, I know how you dislike it when you think anyone has mischaracterized your position about anything (you've accused both me and Ed of "lying" when you thought we had done so), so I'll thank you not to mischaracterize my position. I have repeatedly stated that schools may not sponsor scouting units because of BSA's membership requirement. However, I will interpret your mischaracterization of my views as a mistake and not as a deliberate falsehood.

But you miss my point. My point is that the situation with the Jamboree is different from the situation with the schools. The Seventh Circuit gave a clear preview of what the current Supreme Court would rule both in respect to standing and on the merits of the challenge to the DOD's involvement with the Jamboree: (1) the challengers have no standing and (2) even if they did, there is enough value to military recruitment and training to justify the expenditures EVEN IF they also benefit a religious organization. As I said, you may not like this government expenditure of your tax money, but according to the Seventh Circuit, it is legal--and I predict that the Supreme Court will rule the same way, if anyone chooses to waste resources in pursuing an appeal. Really now, with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, are you SURE you want them to get an opportunity to opine on how far government entities may go to support Scouting?

In my son's troop, there was an older boy that everyone called "Spongebob." I'm not sure why they called him this, but it seemed to be an affectionate nickname. It would seem extreme to me to forbid this kind of nickname. On the other hand, I recognize that nicknames can be cruel (especially when they are applied to younger boys). It seems to me that this is something the SM and SPL should monitor and evaluate--while I'm not as sanguine as Ajmako that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations, perhaps I would agree that this is one situation where a bright-line rule may not be the best approach.

"Whats going to happen is the will end up banning all groups."

That's what happened in our school system, when they wanted to exclude fliers from an evangelical group. First they banned fliers from everyone except school groups and sports leagues, and then they banned all fliers except from the school itself (even banning fliers from the PTA). Now they've reached a compromise in which all groups (presumably including the evangelistic group) can send home fliers four times a year. It really is pretty much an all-or-nothing thing--the school doesn't have to create the forum for speech, but when it does, it can't discriminate based on the content of the speech.

"Yes Hunt, YOUR money will be wasted on court costs; I note you aren't concerned about MY money being spent on an organization that excludes atheists, being paid for by all taxpayers, including atheists. I doubt all the litigation would exceed what the DoD spends on one jamboree."

I'm not concerned about it because I feel confident that the courts will rule that your money is being well spent for purposes that benefit the military in its training and recruitment. While you may not like that (just as I don't like some of the things that the government spends my money on), I think it's different from throwing away money defending a futile appeal, pursued by people who can't accept that they've lost.

That's right, the case was against DOD, so it will be MY money that will be wasted if a futile appeal is taken.

While there are legal arguments on both sides, the chances that the current Supreme Court would strike down the Jamboree law on the basis that members of the public can't participate fully is vanishingly remote. Really, if I were the plaintiffs, I would be concerned about appealing the case for fear that the Supreme Court would take up the reasoning of the concurring judge on standing.

I think an en banc rehearing is unlikely, since there was no dissent in the case--in fact, the concurring opinion went even farther than the majority in asserting that there was no standing. Realisticly, this is probably the end of the line for this case. And, as Ed points out, the Jamboree is open to the public--a point emphasized in the opinion, by the way--so I think the kind of standing Merlyn suggests is unlikely to succeed. What's more, with the Supreme Court we have now, BSA would very likely prevail on the merits even if some plaintiff could show standing--the Court would simply say that the Jamboree benefits the military, that the entanglement with religion is minimal, and thus that it passes Constitutional muster. Of course, somebody may decide to waste his (and BSA's) money to pursue it, but the chances of prevailing are virtually nil--just as, for another example, are Newdow's chances of ever getting the Supreme Court (as currently constituted) to declare that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutuional, no matter how strong his arguments may be.

"Someone should definitely tell her that the way she is wearing the shirt is improper. Wouldn't someone correct a Scout who had his shirt on that way?"

Would someone? That's really the question here, I think. How good is the uniforming for others in the troop, including leaders? If there are men wearing non-uniform pants without being criticized, for example, then I think it would be unfair to single her out unless there is something indecent about her attire.

I've read the opinion, and it seems to me that this is probably the end of the road for those who want to challenge the military's support of the Jamboree. I think it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take this case on appeal, and even more unlikely that the decision would be overturned. Although the suit was dismissed on standing grounds, this is not one of those cases where the plaintiffs can go back and find somebody else with a better claim to standing--the decision essentially says that no private citizen has standing to challenge the Jamboree statute.

By the way, the court also gives a pretty clear indication of how it would rule on the Establishment Clause argument if there were standing, and it's pretty obvious that the plaintiffs would have lost on the merits as well.

They could enforce the Eagle MB requirement by insisting on seeing the actual blue cards (assuming they are used in that district).

I suspect that this whole thing arose out of an Eagle BOR in which a boy had a large number of MBs signed off by a single counselor. That's not to say it's a reasonable limitation, but you can easily imagine situations that might make leaders want to impose it.

"BSA as a MOVEMENT that stresses the STRICT adherence to signing the Declaration of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, sounds a whole lot like religious fundamentalism to me."

You want to characterize an organization that includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Unitarians, etc. as practicing religious fundamentalism? The religious principle is about as vague and general as you can get and still be religious. I mean, seriously, what does this part of your argument gain you? I assure you, if BSA were truly run by religious fundamentalists, they wouldn't let in adherents of all those false religions.

I think that diversity has some benefits by itself, but its primary value is demonstrating that the program is available to all--in other words, if the membership isn't diverse, that shows that we are underserving some communities, for various reasons.

"Unless the vast unknown emptiness IS that god for some person - and unless BSA is ready to make a very specific definition of what BSA means by "God", the judgment should be left to the individual holding the belief. BSA's desire not to provide such specificity is obvious."

I think this makes BSA's virtue into a vice--that is, you are essentially criticizing BSA for its non-sectiarian position. BSA's only limitation, essentially, is that there must be some supernatural element in order for something to be a "religion."

I think that another theme that runs through this discussion is that the most important element of a religion is the moral code it provides to its followers. BSA's statement that only those observing their duty to God can be the best kind of citizens seems to buy into that theory, as does Packsaddle's idea that his Church is as good as any religion because he can derive a moral code from it. For me, however, this is entirely the wrong way to look at religion. Religion is not important because it tells people how to behave, but because it reflects our relationship to a higher reality. I think this is more difficult to express in a non-sectarian way--but this is the factor that atheists do not share with religious people, no matter how upright and moral they may be in their actions. In other words, to my mind, the "supernaturalism and ancient mythology" is really what religion is all about, not the moral code it provides. Where BSA should be in all this, of course, is a much more difficult question.

To me, an Eagle COH is very much like a high school or college graduation ceremony. While it is primarily designed to honor the achievement of the Scout or the graduate, it is also an important milestone for the family and other supporters. An Eagle COH is also an important event for the younger scouts in the troop. So, I do think a scout has an obligation to have an Eagle COH unless he has a very good reason not to do so, and I don't think discomfort is a good enough reason. Reminding a person that his choices have effects on other people is not unkind.

I agree that "namecalling" is not necessarily bullying--however, it seems to me that what Lisabob is describing is beyond the friendly banter (including namecalling) that is common among boys (and men). It can be hard to draw the line, of course.

I think it is true that men and women communicate differently, and this may be an element of this issue. If you haven't read it before, you might read "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen, which has a lot about this. [she gives an example--if a girl has a big nose, her good friends will tell her it's not big, it fits her face, etc. If a boy has a big nose, his good friends will call him "Schnozz." This is bonding, not belittling behavior.] One other gender-related comment I must make--the boys may have trouble distinguishing between speech that is inappropriate at any time and speech that is inappropriate around you. (I guess this is not necessarily a gender issue, but I suspect that the gender factor magnifies it.) I would suggest that to make clear that speech of certain kinds is inappropriate at any time, make sure that you don't talk too much about your reaction to hearing it, as opposed to the values that it represents.

Packsaddle, by your logic a boy who is an anarchist could also feel he satisfied the oath, because he believes he has no duty to his country. One of Ayn Rand's followers might feel that he has no obligation to help other people, and thus he could freely swear that he has met his obligation to do so.

While I'm not advocating what I'm about to say, the way to drop the DRP while retaining the Oath and Law without changes would be to say that when the Oath says "God," that includes non-theistic ethical systems that take the place of religious-based ethics in the life of the individual.

"I've told my son, that if he is uncomfortable with the attention, that he should look at it as an opportunity for him to thank all the leaders, fellow scouts and family who have helped and supported him in his journey."

I would state this more forcefully--I think a boy has an obligation to thank those people who helped him get where he is. To deny them the opportunity to attend his COH is unkind.

Kudu writes:

"Six-year-old Mark Welsh is not a "rhetorical device," he is a human being with a heart that the BSA sought to capture in a public classroom and then break. The rhetorical device here is your attempt to shift the discussion away from the true meaning and practice of the BSA's "Religious Principle.""

No, I'm sorry, the rhetorical device is your misstatement of the Welsh case. "BSA" did not tell him that anyone can join; a person did that, and that person was wrong. In fact, not everyone can join. While it is regrettable that a boy's feelings were hurt, I don't think a national organization should have to change its membership requirements just because one of its members mistated them. This case is not really relevant to the argument about whether everyone should be allowed to join, and it is your use of this single emotion-laden incident that diverts the discussion from the real issues. I mean, we could talk about whether BSA should admit girls without talking about poor little Susie whose heart was broken when her brother joined and she couldn't.

"The DRP "religious requirement" for membership is religious fundamentalism, the strict and literal forced submission to a set of basic religious principles."

The DRP is a far cry from what anyone would recognize as "fundamentalism," since it is broadly non-sectarian. Repetition of this point really takes away from your argument. Indeed, your devotion to Baden-Powell's ideas is a much more obvious form of fundamentalism.

"...whereas advancement that includes religious book learning is what Baden-Powell defines as "instruction," the opposite of Scouting."

OK, I guess you'd be against addition of religious program content, as well. I understand that you think a return to the basics of Baden-Powell's approach would result in the inculcation of "Practical Christianity" in scouts. Would you object to the use of the term "Practical Christianity" in BSA materials to describe the values of the organization?

Some threads are unbearably long

As we go at it hammer and tong

But it's just that we care

And just want to share

And besides, the other guy's WRONG.

Sometimes there is another poster who just gets under your skin, and sometimes you need to take a break from the fray to get over it. I've been there--at least once, when I finally returned, the person who annoyed me was gone. The only suggestion I would have for moderators is to feel free to move the more testy exchanges here to Issues and Politics, where those who choose to participate can do so. For participants, I would suggest that if you are participating in a thread in one of the more program-specific forums, and you want to drop a bomb of some kind, spin it off as a thread here. Thus, for example, if you think FCFY is a terrible idea, spin that off here rather than injecting into a discussion started by a person who is trying to make FCFY work.

The phrase "turn our backs on a six-year-old" is nicely turned, and certainly implies something only a heartless person would do. But it's the kind of rhetorical device that is designed to avoid focussing on the basic question of whether it is reasonable for a religious organization to restrict its membership to religious people. While it's too bad that some six-year-olds will have parents who choose to teach them that religion is a fairy tale, with the result that those kids will not be able to join the religious organization, that is a decision the parents have the right to make. It seems to me that if BSA dropped the religious requirement for membership, but increased religious program elements, those same parents would either continue to keep their kids out, or would be complaining about the religious program elements.

This subject has been extensively discussed here before, with some arguing that BSA's policies are enough, and others arguing that troop by-laws and policies may be necessary. Back when we were having this discussion, I was of the view that troops might need some rules (preferably set by the PLC)--however, I must say that when I went on the web and looked at actual troop by-laws and policies, the majority of them included rules that are contrary to BSA rules and policies, especially with respect to advancement--things like limitations on parents counseling merit badges, the number of merit badges a single counselor can counsel, etc., and they also included a lot of rules that looked to me like adults exerting their power over the boys. As a result, I now think that the issue of troop bylaws or rules should only be raised AFTER the troop has leaders--both adult and boy--who have been trained and really understand the BSA's policies and rules. If, at that point, the PLC wants to institute a rule against iPods on campouts, it's OK from my point of view.

I would say that overall, the program is rigorous enough as long as boys are actually required to fulfill the requirements as written. I think that like others, I would make some changes that might make specific parts more rigorous. For example, I don't like Swimming and Lifesaving being optional, because I just can't picture an Eagle Scout who isn't capable of saving a drowning person.

If I were revamping the requirements, I would consider having two groups of non-Eagle-required Merit Badges, "Scout Skills," and "General," and would require that a minimum number of the optional merit badges had to come from the Scout Skills group--this would include things like Cooking, Wilderness Survival, Orienteering, Pioneering, etc. I guess this would make the program a bit more rigorous--but I confess I don't like to see an Eagle candidate who has the required merit badges, and then Art, Dentistry, Fingerprinting, Basketry, Mammal Study, Indian Lore, etc., but none of the more skills-oriented badges.

You know, I agree that the teachers shouldn't have told a boy that "anyone can join" when it isn't true. But I'm nonplussed by the rest of Kudu's rant. Are you sure you don't want to take it back? I'm assuming you'd like to be taken seriously when you advance your other ideas on this board. As has been mentioned ad infinitem, BSA's religious requirement is extremely broad, and is hardly limited to fundamentalists. BSA makes no statements about who is or is not going to Hell, or what God to worship, or anything of the sort. What Lisabob keeps going back to is the idea that if "duty to God" is truly a core element of BSA's goals and programs, there is nothing wrong with having a program that reflects that element. We can debate about whether the best way to do that is with membership requirements or some other way, but if religion really IS a core element, then all this moaning and groaning about excluding non-religious people is essentially sour grapes by people who would like to join a camping club without accepting the other baggage of the club. The involvement of the government is a complicating factor, and I have always agreed that government entities, including schools, shouldn't be sponsoring units because that violates the Establishment Clause. BSA has taken steps to move out of those sponsorships, so this is becoming a non-issue. As for BSA being a "state-sponsored religious monopoly," this is nonsense, since the federal charter essentially gives BSA nothing more than ordinary intellectual property law would give it. Even if the charter were eliminated, nothing would change. MAYBE some courts would allow some other groups to call themselves "Scouts" of some kind (although not "Boy Scouts of America"), but the effect on BSA membership would likely be minimal.

"Using a replacement explitive is still swearing and Swearing is a dirty habbit, like lying, like picking your nose, like other dirty little habbits. It's bad behavior and must not be tollerated or condoned."

I can see this as a principle, but where do you draw the line? Dagnabbit? Great Caesar's Ghost? Goodness gracious? Godfrey Daniels? Shoot? Fooey? Do you allow use of the term "snafu?"

My son's troop doesn't have any established attendance requirements (at least, that any current leaders know about). One result of this is that we have at times advanced boys with poor attendance, even boys who didn't perform their PORs very well at all. On the other hand, if we had rigid rules, there would be a few boys who would have had problems advancing because of sports or other activities, who, in my judgment, are good Scouts who contribute as much as they can.

I guess my take on this is that at the least there must be some expectations of what level of participation is required for time in a POR to count for advancement. For a boy with a POR to fail to show up lets down the other boys, and shouldn't be rewarded. If you're going to take the step of denying or delaying advancement to a boy for such a reason, it seems to me that it's essential that he know what is required of him in advance. Whether that's a rule of thumb for everyone, or a negotiated expectation with each scout, is not what's most important.