Hunt

When I saw the story about this, I had to read it a couple of times before I could believe it was true. I showed it to my wife and said THIS is why people should be voting the Republicans out of office; not all this tangential stuff. "Bush says we don't torture. We don't. End of story." Wow.

"You see, girls are a 'protected class'. Boys aren't." Well, no. Under the law, "sex" is a protected class, and you are a member of a protected class by virtue of your sex, whether you are male or female. One reason that it may seem that females are more "protected" is that there were so many more situations in which they were excluded before the laws changed.

Sigh. Guys, even BSA has realized that a public school or other public entity can't charter a troop or pack. The reason is simple: the chartering organization actually OWNS the unit, and a school can't own an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. It's that simple. Again (for the thousandth time)this isn't about units being allowed to MEET at public schools. It is not about schools "having clubs" of various kinds. It is about whether the school itself can OWN an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. I really think you should give this argument a rest, since BSA itself has dropped it. Of course, Merlyn invites this kind of response by trying to root out every Cub Scout pack sponsored by a firehouse in Back of Nowhere, Montana and then talking about it here, which I guess is designed to incite you guys. Meanwhile, the ADA case--the subject of this thread--was clearly correctly decided.

To also go back to the boy who is the subject of this thread: He has now said that he "leans toward there being a God because no one has disproved it to me" It seems to me that this can be the end of the inquiry. Since BSA does not "define what constitutes belief in God," this statement surely qualifies, and the DRP is satisfied. This boy does not deny the existence of God.

While there is material on BSA websites that says that "atheists and agnostics" may not be members of BSA, these words, as far as I understand, do not appear in the DRP or in BSA's bylaws. Thus, there is no indication of what definition of "agnostic" is being used in those discussions, or what official force (if any) they are supposed to have. I see nothing that requires us to assume that because a boy calls himself an "agnostic" that he cannot qualify for BSA membership, as long as he is is willing to recite and live by the Oath and Law. After all, an agnostic may believe in God even though he thinks there is no tangible evidence of God's existence. Again, when the head of Scouting says we don't ask those questions of boys, and there is nothing in any of the training materials I know about that instructs us to extract this information and expell non-believers, I continue to believe that volunteer leaders at the unit level should respect BSA's totally non-sectarian nature and refrain from dissecting boys' religious beliefs unless they unequivocally state that they are atheists.

"Makes no difference where those examples happened. All that matter is that they did happen." Ah, but did they happen? For example, I would have to see proof that the "ACLU" demanded that students gathered at the flagpole to pray be arrested. I don't believe that this would be consistent with the ACLU's position, and thus I have trouble believing it to be true. If you spend five minutes looking at ACLU's website, a fair observer would would conclude that ACLU addresses many different issues, and it is likely that most people would agree with many of them. It is certainly true that ACLU's take on controversial issues is usually (but not always) the liberal side of the issue (ie., against death penalty, pro-abortion rights, etc.). But I think it's also fair to say that ACLU devotes a fair amount of its energy to protecting the rights of really powerless people, like prisoners and the poor.

Again, it's semantics, but if you describe the "benefit" in a certain way, the situations are the same. If the benefit in Berkeley is a free berth, you can't get the benefit without meeting the requirement. If the benefit in BSA is membership, you can't get the benefit without meeting the requirement. Again, my point is that it's not about equal treatment, it's about whether the requirement is a reasonable one. Your argument is really just that Berkeley's requirement isn't all that onerous because you can still get a berth by paying--and thus that the requirement is reasonable. Note that the more a berth costs, the weaker that argument gets.

"I agree that EVERY opportunity should be given to the lad for him to clarify his position. If he doesn't believe, he can't be a member. Soryy." I continue to believe the opposite: if he hasn't made it expressly clear that he does not believe in God at all, I would drop the question and leave it up to his own conscience. Does this boy refuse to recite the Oath and Law? We are not told so...only that it is difficult for him. Just as I don't think it is my job to ask for a birth certificate to verify age or a DNA test to verify gender of youth members, I believe in leaving it up to the youth members to determine for themselves if they meet the religious belief requirement, as long as they have not made a definitive statement that they do not. I simply do not think that adult volunteers at the unit level should be involved in figuring out whether a particular belief system or variety of Buddhism makes the cut. Again, I see nothing in any BSA publication requiring me to interrogate boys to enforce this membership rule, which I consider extremely vague anyway except for the extreme case in which a boy unambiguously states that he is a total atheist. And if the President of BSA says "we don't ask those questions," who are we to deviate from the word from the top?

Here's my advice: drop the subject. The boy said that it's difficult to be reverent to a God you have no proof exists. He did not say "I do not believe in God," which is about the only clearly disqualifying statement. Why is it your job to pin him down? He knows what the Law and Oath say--leave it to his own conscience. If his actions are those of a boy who lives the Oath and Law in his daily life, approve him for advancement. He may hit a wall when he goes for an Eagle Board, or he may say something different. In any case, I see nothing in the duties of volunteer scout leaders that obligates them to track down non-believers and kick them out. So don't.

This may be a matter of semantics, but if Berkeley is treating all non-profits equally, then BSA's membership process treats all boys equally. Both will admit anyone, as long as they meet the requirements. In Berkeley, some non-profits meet the requirements, and some don't. Some boys meet the membership requirements for BSA, and some don't. All treated equally, right? Again, this is semantics but the existence of a requirement that not all non-profits meet means that all non-profits are NOT treated equally. What I'm trying to say is that trying to couch this in terms of equal treatment isn't the right approach. It's really about whether the anti-discrimination requirement is fair and proper or not.

Well, it's not strictly true that BSA is being treated the same as all other non-profits, because the city has imposed a restriction that some non-profits meet and others don't. It seems to me that Merlyn's argument is really that the city has imposed a requirement on access to free berths that is reasonable and not constitutionally prohibited. The first point is debatable, and the Supreme Court has decided not to get into the second. I assume that if a city provided free berths to all non-profits "as long as they recognize the lordship of Jesus Christ," Merlyn would not be persuaded by an argument that this requirement treated all non-profits the same. This requirement would pretty clearly be unconstitutional. On the other hand, imagine if the city only gave free berths to non-profits that were headquartered in the city. Such a requirement certainly wouldn't treat all non-profits the same. It would probably be constitutional, though, and you could debate whether it was a good idea or not. Would it be "fair?" Well, it might not seem fair to you if your kid was in a non-profit that happened to be headquartered elsewhere. Which of these two extremes is Berkeley's requirement most like? On the one hand, it is based on a general city policy on non-discrimination, which makes it seem more neutral. On the other hand, it penalizes groups that have a viewpoint-based membership policy. I don't think it's so clear legally, but I guess the Supremes have answered it for us for the time being.

"It's a shame you like Saddam so much and his terrorist buddies, I suggest you join Saddam." You should do more than "tone it down"--you should apologize for repeatedly saying things like this, when you must know it is untrue. "Also, Iraq had WMD, we found them, lots of them. I would bet that many are still buried in the desert." ? I'll bet you get mad when flaiming liberals make similarly basesless statements (i.e., Bush knew about 9/11 in advance).

There's always a problem when we mix up scientific facts with moral ideas. Even a complete understanding of the causes of homosexuality will not necessarily answer the question of whether the particular behavior is moral or not. After all, promiscuous sex before marriage is perfectly normal biologically, but we are always telling young people that it's immoral. Just a note on proselytizing: While I agree that a teacher shouldn't try to convert grade school kids to a particular religious view, I think the complaint here is that a teacher also shouldn't try to convert grade school kids to one side of a controversial moral, ethical, or political issue. To try an analogy that may be less explosive, imagine a divorced teacher with a classroom that included many Catholic children. While I don't think such a teacher should necessarily have to hide his marital state, he certainly shouldn't teach the children that divorce is morally acceptable...he shouldn't teach them anything about it.

This case doesn't bother me too much, because the Sea Scouts aren't being denied access--they're just being made to pay for it. Beavah makes a good point though, that at some point the cost of access for the unfavored might be so excessive that the case would come out differently. I also wonder what kinds of restrictions a city would be allowed to put on non-profit groups. It's one thing to say that only groups that don't discriminate against certain groups can get free berths, but what if they required agreement with a particular viewpoint? I don't think that would be constitutional, and it's hard to draw the line. To make this a bit easier to think about, imagine that a city had the following three requirements for a non-profit group to get a free berth: 1. The group must have $1,000,000 in liability insurance. 2. The group must not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. 3. The group must sign a statement agreeing that the death penalty is immoral and should be outlawed. All of these requirements would "discriminate" against certain non-profit groups, but clearly they aren't the same. The insurance requirement discriminates against groups that can't afford it, but I don't think anybody would say that it's improper. The third requirement is clearly improper, because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. The discrimination one, though, is in the middle. In one sense it is viewpoint-neutral, because it governs behavior without being concerned about viewpoint. (Thus, for example, it would presumably exclude Girl Scouts because they discriminate on the basis of sex.) On the other hand, it excludes groups like the Boy Scouts which discriminate as a matter of principle. I wish the Supremes had taken the case...maybe they'll take a similar one later.

This may just be semantics, but is there any reason the Troop can't have multiple Quartermasters?

Like Zahnada, I'd like to try to comment on the original topic. It seesm to me that the problem here is defining the line between teaching facts that children need to know about, and teaching a viewpoint on moral and ethical issues. It's one thing to teach that that homosexuality exists, it's another thing to teach that all people should be treated with respect, but it's something else again to teach that one side or another of a controversial moral issue is right or wrong. For those of you think it's OK for the school to assign "Daddy's Roommate," would you think it was OK for a school in a conservative district to assign "Daddy and His Roommate Are Deviants"? There is a difficult line to be drawn here. For example, pretty much all curriculum in the country today would make it clear that slavery is wrong. That's no longer controversial. Similarly, I think all history curriculum would depict giving the vote to women as a positive development. But when you get to more recent events which remain controversial, I don't think the public schools should take a position. For example, while I'm OK with my high schooler discussing whether Roe v. Wade was a good decision, I'd have trouble with a required curriculum that took a firm decision one way or the other. And one more thing: "Gays aren't intolerant about hetersexuality. They're intolerant about bigotry and intolerance and are telling the bigots that their time is up." It seems to me that many people on that side of the argument are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint, since they are willing to label the holders of that viewpoint as bigots, and to support indoctrinating elementary school students with their viewpoint. I would also suggest that before you tell the bigots that their time is up, you'd better count the votes. I suspect that in much of the country, a ballot initiative on whether school curriculum should include the books discussed above would overwhelmingly reject them.

"Dan Crane tearfully apologized for his actions, accepted his censure, and was promptly voted out of office." He didn't resign, though. He ran for reelection, just like Gerry Studds did. "What I can't figure out is why you Saddam apologists like Saddam so much and wish for him to be in power." I can see why you're a fan of Ann Coulter. This is the kind of rhetoric she likes. Even though you must know that critics of Bush's Iraq policy are hardly "Saddam apologists," you say this anyway. Why?

You have a pretty short memory if you don't think the media crucified Gary Condit. He even successfully sued (actually settled with) some writers for having libelled him. So I don't think the press is partisan when it comes to a juicy sex scandal. However, blatant hypocrasy makes the story juicier--like having the cochair of the exploited children committee turning out to be a predator.

Well, technically the Tot'n Chip patch can't be worn on the uniform at all. Says so right on the ScoutStuff page where they sell it: "This emblem is not for uniform wear." So not only does it not belong on a pocket flap (despite its shape), it's not really a temporary patch either. What is it? A collectible emblem, I guess. I suppose a boy could put it on his backpack.

"when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment" Coulter doesn't mention that a Republican Congressman, Dan Crane, was censured at the same time as Gerry Studds--Crane admitted having sex with a 17-year-old female page. However, he didn't resign--he ran for re-election, and was defeated.

This idea that the Republicans laid off of Foley because they didn't want to be accused of gay-bashing is about the funniest thing I've heard in a while. For Anne Coulter to raise it in a column which itself is full of gay-bashing is even funnier. (Seeing a person as crude and nasty as her talk about morals perplexes me, but I don't find that part of it funny.) Just for context, read this editorial by Joe Califano, who was hired by the House to investigate the page scandal in the 1980s: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301109.html It should also be added that Studds' misconduct--gross as it was--happened in 1973 and wasn't illegal. It was uncovered--ten years after it happened--by an investigation begun by the Democratic leadership. Should the House have expelled him rather than just censuring him? Maybe. Do you think the Republican House would have expelled Foley if he had refused to resign? Who knows? Side note: BSA's website says that Foley was a volunteer adult leader, but I haven't seen anything else about that.

I agree that you should take the lead and change the mentality--you're the CC,and you should lead the committee. However, one small caveat...if the boy in question is your own son, it complicates the situation. If he is, I would suggest that you look beyond the rules, and consider whether maybe he could show more maturity and leadership--especially if he's still young for Life. If you begin a campaign for change based on the impact of the old rules on your own kid, your efforts are likely to be discounted. If it's not your own son--and really, I have no reason to think it is--I agree that the committee should be educated, he should have a new BOR, and he should be passed. He's met the requirement for a POR. As far as I know, the only true leadership requirements for advancement are in the Eagle project and for Eagle palms.

If the pack already has non-Catholic leaders, I would expect the priest to back down--perhaps he didn't realize that. But I'm troubled by the idea that a COR who isn't directly involved with the unit would turn down leaders. In most cases, those are parents of boys in the unit--how will they react to being turned down?

To me, the problem here is the whole enterprise of thinking up appropriate "punishments." I like Eagledad's solution, because that wasn't a punishment but an opportunity to teach. I don't think adults in Scouting should be punishing scouts--sometimes there will need to be consequences for bad behavior, like being sent home, or not advancing, but those aren't punishments. Side note: recently I was obligated to punish my son, because he did something for which I had promised punishment. I gave him three choices: to be grounded (I refused to say for how long), to perform an unpleasant task (I wouldn't say what it was), or to be spanked (I refused to say how many lashes). What do you think he chose?

"How many kids today do 2-3 hours of homework a night, like we used to do? How many can balance a checkbook, diagram a sentence, explain the platforms of the current political parties, change their own oil, or like, carry on like a conversation in like proper English and stuff with like someone like older than they like are? IF they are going to be successful adults, they simply don't have time for this crap." I have to think that excellent computer skills will be more important for this generation of boys that will be skills like changing their own oil. I agree with you about ignorance of politics, but I'm not sure that was any better when I was young. But I have to disagree with you about homework. My kids have way more homework than I ever did, and they are doing critical writing much earlier than we did. I guess I don't see much difference between spending an hour on Myspace and spending an hour watching Gilligan's Island, which many reasonably successful people of my era did every day after school.