Hunt

Bobanon, using terms like "religious reich" detracts from (destroys, really) your ability to persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with you. This is the point that I've been trying to make about persuasion. You really need to take the hint and drop that kind of rhetoric. Merlyn, do you think the Roman Catholic Church denigrates atheists by refusing to allow them to receive Mass? BSA is a club for people who believe in God and who think that's important--if you don't agree with that, you can't join. If you feel denigrated by that, I suggest you don't know what denigration is.

I'm glad that Merlyn makes it clear that he doesn't object to BSA excluding atheists, now that BSA has agreed to move out of the public schools. My point is that the efforts to push BSA out of the public schools probably did not help those who would like to persuade BSA to change its membership requirements. I've always said that those efforts were legally correct--in fact, the schools can't sponsor an organization that limits membership on religious grounds--I just think the tactic was shortsighted. The Dale case is an even more obvious case--although nobody could have stopped Dale, perhaps, he was supported by the ACLU, which also wrote an amicus brief--which, in my estimation, turned out to be a tactical error. It should have been clear to the lawyers for Dale and the ACLU that the Supreme Court was never going to rule that a private organization couldn't set its own membership requirements--really, the ACLU should have been on the other side of the case--it should have opposed the twisting of a public accomodations law to try to infringe on the right of free association. The result was a resounding loss, with BSA now being able to point to the Supreme Court having affirmed its right to exclude gay leaders. I think that was a setback for groups like Scouting for All, if their goal is to persuade BSA to change.

Of course it's just speculation, but to give Rumsfeld the award at the same time BSA is hoping that the administration will aggressively pursue the jamboree appeal just looks bad. Of course, non-profits do this kind of stuff all the time--I just wish BSA wouldn't.

I think it's a great service--I, for one, want to know about these articles, and often they are something that we want to discuss here.

Do you think bringing--and losing--the Dale case helped the cause of those who would like to persuade BSA to change its membership policies? Do you think forcing BSA out of public schools makes it more or less likely that BSA will change its policy on the religious requirement anytime soon? If your goal is to persuade BSA that your position is ethically superior, these lawsuits are counterproductive. Of course, if your goal is simply to protect your rights and not persuade anybody of anything, I guess they make sense. I guess a simpler way of putting this is that people involved in scouting are more likely to be persuade by a person who says he loves scouting than a person who makes it clear that he hates it.

I think Lisabob's idea is the best one--I don't like BSA giving an award that looks like a payment for favors (in this case, allowing the Jamboree to stay at A.P. Hill). The BSA shouldn't appear to be currying favor with politicians. I should also note that you can become adept at just skimming past the posts of people who tend to make incendiary statements. Especially if they're just fighting each other, and it's here on Issues and Politics, you shouldn't let it bother you too much.

There are several elements of this story that please me. Both BSA and Scouting for All are choosing to defend their positions in the "marketplace of ideas" rather than going to court. Both are exercising constitutional rights, and are trying to use persuasion to convince others that they are right. After all, if you want to change somebody's mind about something, it's probably not effective to begin by calling them names and saying that they are evil. Notice how Knapp said he still loves scouting? That's smart.

What Oak Tree said. I didn't mean that the elements of the program would be different, but that the group dynamics would be different.

Let me also suggest that some of these reasons might help in evaluating how to react to another person who is violating a rule. For example, when it comes to patch placement, I would obey silly rules, and urge my son to do so--thus, I would tell him not to put Tot'n Chip on the pocket flap. But when I see another scout who has committed that indiscretion, I'm not going to say anything.

I do not believe that BSA will charter a CO that discriminates on the basis of race. I can't quote a rule, but I believe that is in fact BSA's current position. There are certainly plenty of de facto single race units, and a unit limited to a particular religion may similarly limit race. I would also like to point out that you don't necessarily have to have the same view on all three of the "Gs." For example, my opinion is the reverse of SR540Beavers--I don't see a problem if COs want to allow gay leaders, but I support the continuation of the religious requirement as a basic element of the program. As for girls, again I think this should be up to the COs too--I would note that allowing girls in would BY FAR lead to the biggest changes in the program, but would require essentially no changes in the values of scouting.

This is a philosophical topic that comes up here periodically, and I always find it interesting. In the hopes of providing some food for thought, consider the following two lists (inclusion and order don't necessarily mean I agree with the point myself): Potential reasons for obeying rules: 1. Obeying rules set by legitimate authorities is a moral imperative in itself. 2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed. 3. It's important to show respect for rules in order to set a good example for others. 4. Breaking small rules will lead to less respect for more important rules. 5. If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them. 6. If everybody picked and chose what rules to follow, there would be chaos, and dumb people would ignore the wrong rules. 7. If you violate the rule, you may be punished. Potential reasons for disobeying rules (with examples): 1. The rule is unjust. (I think this can justify even secretly disobeying a rule--such as failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying aboout it). 2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (This may be the case with Kahuna's visit to the waterfront. Another simple one might be the requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.) 3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.) 4. The rule is silly. (Perhaps the fact that although it is shaped like a pocket flap, a Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform.) 5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.) 6. The rule is inconvenient. (Ignoring two-deep leadership because a second adult wasn't available would be an example.) 7. You just think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.) Are there other reasons for either?

My position would be that the Scout has to visit two different places, and the visits must satisfy the criteria of two different subrequirements. There are sites that would satisfy two of them, though, and I guess I would allow this. If a scout visited the State Capitol, I suppose I would allow him to count a visit to the U.S. Capitol as a federal facility--the requirements for reporting are a little bit different. I have found that scouts will usually respond appropriately if I tell them that satisfying a requirement in a particular way would be allowable but would be "cheesy," or that it would be "better" to do it a different way. (For example, for Music requirement 4, I suggest that the scouts write a short piece of music rather than cataloguing a collection of 12 CDs--which I think is "cheesy." I wouldn't refuse to sign it off, though.)

Just to clarify this question of whether the MBC "must" accept nights of family camping...the MBC is not supposed to add or subtract from the requirements, but it is left to the MBC to interpret what they mean. As far as I know, the only recourse if a scout or leader doesn't agree with a MBC's interpretation is to go get another MBC (and to no longer user that MBC--and perhaps to try to get him or her dropped from the list). I do think there is some room for interpretation in what it means to "camp." Personally, I think family or similar camping should count--but I wouldn't count a night in the backyard with an extension cord and a TV. Even though that might be in a tent, I don't think it's really "camping." A MBC might draw that line somewhere else--for example, my family once went to the beach and "camped" in a large commercial campground, although we did sleep in a tent. Is that "camping" for the purposes of the merit badge? I personally would be embarrassed to suggest that it count, but I think it would be up to the MBC to decide whether to admit it. On the other hand, if a boy and his parent go backpacking on the Appalachian Trail and sleep in tents, I think it would be wrong of a MBC not to accept those nights as part of the 20. In other words, I think it is legitimate for a MBC to insist that the 20 nights be "real camping," but not that it be Boy Scout camping.

The good news in this story: Although the Methodist Church could restrict membership in chartered units to Christians, it doesn't. That's good. Although BSA could exclude members of non-traditional religions, it doesn't. That's good. When a number of ill-informed local leaders messed up, higher authorities in both the church and BSA stepped in to make the policies clear, and to try to straighten out the problem. That's good. The pastor of the church called the excluded family and apologized, and then spoke to the scouts and their parents to explain that the boys shouldn't have been excluded. That's good, too. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the parents in the troop were unable to learn from the experience, and continued to object--apparently leading to the Wiccan boys leaving the troop. That's bad. Sadly, this shows that even when the system ultimately works as it is supposed to, you can't always repair the damage that has been done.

I would like to see more information before I accept the New York Post's characterization of the papers in the case or anything else. I will note that this civil suit is taking place ten years after the abuse ceased, and the article doesn't mention the fact that Schwartz has been in prison since 2002. If the civil suit is against BSA and/or the council, the defense will probably argue that there was no reason for BSA to believe that this guy was an abuser--that they had done proper checks, that there were no complaints before this one, etc. They probably want to point to the fact that the accuser didn't make his claims until years after the abuse occurred (I'm assuming that based on the dates, but I don't really know). But you'd have to read the actual papers to know if BSA's lawyers are making a scurrilous argument, or if the Post is overstating to make a splashy headline. I would also note, just in passing, that it surprises me that a church would sponsor a Troop 666.

I don't think the "Red Dog" case is an example of a person trying to change a rule he disagrees with in an orderly way. It's rather a power struggle, in which he chose to use legal tools outside of BSA to actively impede what the council was trying (maybe) to do. I can't really fault BSA for expelling somebody who becomes an active adversary. To put this in the context of a real (but not quite as inflammatory as others) issue, let's imagine that you are a Scouter who believes that it is time to allow girls at all levels of BSA. I think it would be "orderly" for you to bring this up at district and council meetings, to urge your CO to push for the change, to write letters to top leaders in Irving, etc. BSA shouldn't kick you out for doing any of these things. I personally think they also shouldn't kick you out if you publish a respectfully worded op-ed saying the same thing. On the other hand, I wouldn't fault them for kicking you out if you you bring a lawsuit under a state's anti-discrimination law seeking to force BSA to allow your daughter to join. At that point you've moved from being a critic to being an adversary.

Unless there's more to the case than is being reported here, it has nothing to do with the Dale case, but rather is a claim that simply by allowing the Cubs to meet in the school, the school is violating the establishment clause. This issue has been clearly decided, and the Supreme Court will not even take the case (unless, I repeat, there is something more to it). From the report, this is not a case in which the school charters the Pack, but rather one in which the Pack uses the school building along with other community groups. The Dale case involved a claim that under New Jersey law, the Boy Scouts were a "public accomodation" (like a restaurant) and thus subject to anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court tossed out this claim, based on this idea of "associative expression." (I've never understood why it wasn't a simple freedom of association case.) But whatever the label, the Dale case stands for the fairly simple proposition that Americans can form whatever private clubs they want with whatever membership requirements they want. Again, though, that's not what this Michigan case is about.

There were a number of civil rights leaders who didn't think civil disobedience was the right path--they favored working through the courts, and they achieved some mighty victories, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Personally, I think both approaches (working within the system to change it in an orderly fashion, or publicly defying it and taking the consequences) can be ethical. I'm not sure which would be the most effective in this particular case. For the civil rights movement, I think change came from a combination of both approaches.

Backpack mail is a nice way to target the specific age group you're trying to reach--boys in the fifth grade. There are still ways to reach the fifth grade boys who are already Cub Scouts, but it's harder to reach those who aren't. Sometimes PTAs will help by letting you use their address directories for mailings, but sometimes they won't. I agree that personal contacts are by far the most effective, but I would prefer to have multiple ways to get the word out.

"Smoking has no good with it at all. We all know that, including those that smoke. When young boys see smoking taking place and look to us for guidance, what are we going to tell them? Do we really need to look up the answer in the Guide to Safe Scouting?" Maybe you're right, and maybe the Guide to Safe Scouting shouldn't say anything about smoking at all, since it's an ethical and health issue, and not really a safety one. Since smoking is illegal for children, we don't need the GTSS to tell us the boys can't smoke. Fscouter, your interpretation seems to be that the GTSS doesn't actually ban smoking at scouting events, but simply points out that it's unethical. Is that your position, or do you think it's a ban, but deliberately worded in an odd manner?

I think there are two different issues here. One, which I have encountered, is a person who is already a registered Scouter (with a unit, say) being asked to fill out a new registration form to be a MBC. It has been suggested that the reason for this is that many of the unit scouters have been around so long that they have never had background checks, and that background checks are being performed on the new registrations. This was briefly a hassle, but not a big deal. The other thing is asking MBCs to submit a new application every year. I can't see any purpose to this, unless again what they are really doing is performing background checks on people who have been registered for a long time. Perhaps there is some legal reason they need a new registration to perform a background check. Could it be that some councils are now performing background checks every year? That would be OK with me, but its seems like it would be very expensive.

Councils can have a very low threshold for banning someone over a child protection issue, and it can be extremely difficult to get reinstated even if the facts are on your side. I agree with this approach, but it can lead to injustice in some particular cases. I surmise that the adults were banned, the troop thought it was unfair, and continued to allow them to show up at troop events.

What if the rule said the following: "BSA believes that pointing a firearm or fire-arm like instrument (including a paintball gun, laser, or laser tag handset) at another individual contributes to a reduction in the concern for gun safety, and therefore any such activity is not authorized." Would that be safety or ethics? I guess it would eliminate squirt-guns (but not water balloons or hoses).

Imagine that a boy's Star BOR was on August 30, the next-to-the-last day of the month. When do six months run out? The sixth month is February, which (usually) has 28 days.

Note that the article (which came out today) says the charter was revoked "in part" for the hazing incident, and that the Council declined to say why it was revoked. It may be more the CO's response to the incident than the incident itself that is involved here--or there may be other things entirely. Edited to add: Yup. Another article indicates that several adult leaders were banned from Scouting over the incident, and the last straw for the Council was when they were allowed to attend Eagle Courts of Honor after being banned. See: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16555499&BRD=2626&PAG=461&dept_id=532624&rfi=6(This message has been edited by Hunt)