Hunt

Merlyn, you keep going back to the government perks and government sponsorship. You've claimed, ad infinitum, that this is what you care about, not BSA's restrictive membership rules. You're going to change your position now, now that you've essentially won, at least on sponsorship? I'm pretty sure you said before that you didn't care if BSA changed its membership policies or gave up government sponsorship--but now you do care? I repeat the question--see if you can give a straight answer--what is wrong with BSA, a religious organization, restricting its membership to religious people if it no longer is entangled with government? Please answer without saying that BSA is still entangled with government--I think you understand the question.

Semper, thanks for the letter from Lee. I think it shows the degree of rationalization that a person can resort to in order to defend behavior that he knows, in his deepest soul, is wrong. I particularly like: "Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?" He's criticizing Northerners for being "intolerant" of the "spiritual liberty" of Southerners to enslave people!

With all due respect, packsaddle, I hardly think it's "whining" to point out that criticism is unfair. Certainly Merlyn has a First Amendment right to criticize BSA all he wants (that's what people usually say when it's pointed out that what they're saying is wrong-headed--that they have a right to say it anyway. Sure!) Merlyn can't explain why he thinks it's wrong for a religious organization to limit its membership to religious people. He can argue sensibly that it shouldn't be sponsored by government entities, and why it shouldn't "denigrate" atheists, but he really can't explain why there's anything wrong with exclusive organizations. I thought his comparison of BSA with the KKK was pretty funny--Merlyn's analogy suggests that he thinks the problem with the KKK is that they won't let blacks JOIN.

I just read (or actually, listened to) an interesting biography of Washington called "His Excellency" by Joseph Ellis. The issue of the morality of slavery was very current during his life, and he was severely taken to task by some critics for owning slaves, and on several occasions abolitionists made religion-based pleas to him to show leadership and free his own slaves. His problem was that he didn't own all his slaves outright--a bunch of them technically belonged to his wife's family, and he couldn't easily free them (it is also thought that his wife was not sympathetic to the idea of freeing them). In the end, he freed all his own slaves in his will--he was very concerned about his own reputation and legacy, and thought this would help it.

"Is it possible, as some web documents have indicated, that the gay issue isn't as much decided by a majority of CO representatives as it is by a significant minority, including the LDS units, who had threatened to leave BSA if their views weren't accepted as policy?" I think it's possible, but highly unlikely. I think given the COs that BSA has, the majority of them probably do agree with the policy--at the very least, the majority of those that have an opinion about it at all. That's why the only proposal worth discussing is allowing COs to have "local option" on this particular issue--this would be the majority recognizing that a minority view exists. This is what BSA does with some other issues (such as whether women can be unit leaders). But trying to persuade BSA to insist that all units allow openly gay leaders and/or members is a non-starter. That really would cause a bunch of relgious COs to leave, and they'd be justified in doing so, in my opinion.

jkhny, I have another challenge for you. In your next post, answer Bob's question and only Bob's question, in as few sentences as you can. Don't add any extraneous issues, don't put any words in all caps, and try not to rant. If you can do that, I'll read some more of you posts. If you can't, you're off my list, too.

My point again is that ONCE BSA IS NO LONGER SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, why is it fair to criticize them for having a religious requirement for membership? That same requirement exists for many other groups, including most churches and other ecumenical groups (such as, probably, something like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Gideons, etc.). The extremely non-sectarian nature of BSA is unusual, but it is a difference in degree rather than in kind from something like an ecumenical Christian group. I guess I can understand how an atheist might feel "denigrated" when somebody says that believing in God makes you a better person. But your criticism is not really of the person or the organization, but of religion itself, and its claims to have the truth and to make people better. I had a friend who belonged to a Christian denomination that believed nobody could be saved unless they were baptized after reaching the age of responsibility. In other words, according to the doctrine of this sect, all non-Christians are damned, as are all Christians who were baptized only as infants. I confess that I found this doctrine annoying, but would it have been fair to say that it "denigrated" anyone? I don't think so. Although this fellow thought I was damned for all eternity, he didn't dislike me. There was no animus, in other words--only a disagreement. I think it's fine for Merlyn to continue to criticize certain things that BSA does--for example, I can see why somebody might not like Learning for Life in schools. And I also think it would be fair to criticize BSA if they say mean things about atheists or others. Perhaps the battle over the membership restrictions has generated animus against atheists with BSA (certainly it has against the ACLU), but I still don't think that animus against atheists had anything to do with the religious elements of the BSA program in the first place. So, I think it's fair to criticize evidence of animus, but I don't think it's fair at all to criticize the very idea of a non-sectarian religious organization with a membership restricted to religious people.

I suspect that the problem with Reading is the requirement to devote 4 hours to a reading-related service. If so, it's too bad. I think the rise of Fingerprinting and Art show the degree to which Merit Badge days are a significant source of MBs now.

What exactly would you be criticizing, Merlyn? Would you criticize a Catholic youth group that excluded non-Catholics, or a Jewish group that excluded non-Jews? Would you criticize an Elvis Presley fan club that excludes people who don't like Elvis? How about an Asian-American Students' Association that excludes non-Asians? Once the government entanglements are eliminated, isn't BSA just a religious group that excludes people who aren't religious? Let me suggest a distinction between these examples, including BSA, and something like the whites-only proms you mention. An Elvis fan club is designed to include a group of people with a common trait that binds them together--it is not primarily designed to exclude a disliked group. The religious aspect of BSA scouting has been there from the beginning, and it was always part of what it meant to be a scout. It is not designed to exclude atheists because atheists are disliked, but because the organization is designed for religious people. (Perhaps a different argument could be made about BSA's exclusion of openly gay leaders.) I guess the difference is that Scouting has a lot of elements, and the religious one is only one of them. Plenty of people can see that the other elements would be good for non-religious people, so they don't like it that non-religious people are excluded. But I submit that this isn't a difference in principle, but only in degree, from criticizing, say, Campus Crusade for Christ because you have to be a Christian to go to their fun weekend retreats (actually, they'd probably let you go in order to proselytize you, but you get my point). To put it another way, once you recognize a freedom of association, what is a fair reason to criticize a group's decision to associate together to the exclusion of others? It seems to me that you should only criticize them if the exclusion is based on animus--and I don't think BSA's religious element is based on animus.

I don't really want to debate the moral straightness of Robert E. Lee for his own sake--but to provide some food for thought on what we mean by morally straight, and how we go about determining whether a person's actions are consistent with that standard.

The following link: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-500.html takes you to a list of all the merit badges awarded in 2004 (and since 1911). I think it's pretty interesting, and relates to a number of threads. A few things I observe from a first look: 1. To my surprise, it appears that quite a few scouts are choosing to earn Emergency Preparedness instead of Lifesaving, while Hiking and Cycling don't appear to be siphoning off too many from Swimming. 2. You can really tell which MBs are offered at summer camp. It appears to me that these, plus the Eagle-required ones, are the biggest by far. This supports the idea that not too many boys are seeking out MBCs outside their troops, in my opinion. 3. The difficulty of the badge makes a difference. Take a look at the numbers for Insect Study, compared to Mammal Study, for instance. Insect Study is hard, because you have to make a significant collection. You have to be VERY interested in insects to pursue this one. 4. I was pleasantly surprised by the numbers for Cooking. Other observations?

It's here: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-500.html Maybe we should spin a thread to Advancement and talk about what, if anything, these numbers mean.

This facetious-sounding thread title is designed to throw some light on some of the other discussions that are going on, especially on the question of gay leadership. Was Robert E. Lee morally straight as provided in the Scout Oath, and illuminated by the Scout Law? How would you go about making such a judgment? Would you judge him by the consensus moral standards of today, or those of his time? How would you take into account the fact that his actions that would today be viewed as sinful (such as owning slaves) were supported as moral by the church to which he belonged?

Well, I do know that BSA's position on gay leadership does represent the goals and values of many COs, including some of the largest ones. On the other hand, I know that it does not represent the goals and values of some other COs. I suppose something like "the decision was made by representatives of a majority of BSA's chartering organizations, based on the goals and values of those organizations" is probably true. But I thought this was supposed to be one of values of Scouting itself, not the religious views of the COs. Here's the problem, I think, what we're all struggling with: On the one hand, everybody realizes that what is going on here is that many, probably most, and possibly an overwhelming majority, of the COs that are involved with BSA, and many, probably most, of the members of BSA think that homosexual conduct is a sin, because their religion teaches that it is. But if BSA simply came out and said that this was the reason for the policy, it would raise two problems: First, it would suggest that majority rules on matters of principle--and it would leave the door open for a change in the policy if the views of the membership shifted. Second, it would look too sectarian, because it would say that the religious views of the majority trump those of the minority. This is a real bind, and it appears that BSA has chosen to deal with it by not being explicit about its underlying reasons for the policy. To try to state this another way, BSA doesn't have a "bible" to point to on questions of morality, other than the Oath and Law themselves. If there is disagreement about what one of the terms of the Oath or Law means, the decisionmakers have to look at something outside those documents to decide. What are their options? Each can look at his own religious/moral tradition, or his own personal opinions of what is moral. Or, they can look at whether there is a social consensus, or a consensus among selected groups (such as COs). Imagine, as an example, that somebody raised a proposal that nobody who was a Conscientious Objector could be a scout leader because he isn't "Brave." The Oath and Law themselves wouldn't give you what you needed to determine whether such a person was brave or not--you'd have to look at other sources of values--ultimately, you'd be stuck with reaching a consensus view among the decisionmakers. I guess what I'm saying is that realistically this is probably what BSA did with respect to the gay leaders issue, and I think they should say so--that it's a majority (or better, a consensus) view, rather than suggesting that it's a timeless value of Scouting.

Merit badges--OK, it's a tangent, but kind of an interesting one (to me, anyway). I think those numbers are still pretty small, and that something like "Web Design" would get bigger numbers. (I know I've seen the list of all the 2004 MBs earned somewhere recently--can you give a link to it?) Look at Indian Lore--don't you think the reason it's so much bigger than the others is that boys are making little wigwams at summer camp? And I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the others with any significant numbers were offered at Merit Badge days. What hobbies are large numbers of boys interested in these days? What I see most is video and computer gaming--is there some way to take advantage of that interest? Again, this is just an example.

If you'll read my dialogue carefully, you'll see that PR asks, "I've heard that openly gay people can't be Scout leaders. Is that true?" I suppose I could have used "avowed," but normal people don't talk that way. Surely you don't think openly gay people can be Scout leaders, do you? In fact, the FAQ on BSAlegal.org uses the terms as synonyms. If you look at that FAQ, you get what explanation of the position BSA has given. Here are the relevant excerpts: "Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program." "Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath. Morally straight is a broad term which includes all types of moral behavior. There are many persons who may be unsuitable role models of the Oath and Law for adolescent boys." That's pretty much it. Openly gay leaders are not desirable role models because homosexual conduct is not morally straight. Given that this is BSA's explanation, with no other official explanation that I know of, my little dialogue is accurate. Bob's suggestion that BSA doesn't want sexuality used as a political tool may be true, but it's not part of the official explanation. What's lacking is any context for the statement that homosexual conduct isn't morally straight. Perhaps another way to answer PR's question would be, "BSA is don't ask, don't tell, just like the U.S. military." (Of course, the government has had similar problems explaining why "don't ask, don't tell" makes sense.) (This message has been edited by Hunt)(This message has been edited by Hunt)

If the BSA's membership policies are truly based on values, they shouldn't be changed, even if changes would bring in more members. As I've said before, my church would probably increase attendance if it served free beer at worship services. Of course, when a lot of people, including some churches who are COs, start telling you that a policy is out of date, that is a reason to take a look at it, and to make sure you can clearly articulate your reasons for the policy. As I've also said elsewhere, I think BSA has done this effectively with respect to requiring a belief in God, but not effectively with respect to the ban on openly gay leaders. This has led many people to assume, rightly or wrongly, that BSA is simply following the dictates of large and influential religious COs, who might leave the organization if the policy was changed. (Of course, if changing the policy is the right thing to do, that shouldn't matter either.) To be clear, I well realize that BSA has reaffirmed the policy, but I don't think it has clearly articulated the reasons underlying the policy. As far as MBs go, that was just an example, but I think when you look at the list, there are many MBs dealing with "old timey" hobbies like coin collecting, stamp collecting, model building, etc., and not many dealing with more up-to-date interests of today's boys. For example, there should be several MBs dealing with computers, not just one. I think the whole system for creating and updating MBs needs to be rethought, with printed pamphlets being replaced with on-line information, and a more dynamic process for updates. But I'm not claiming, repeat NOT CLAIMING that this alone is driving boys away or harming recruitment: I'm just giving it as an EXAMPLE of how I think BSA could better adapt its programs to changing times without abandoning any values. And I think that BSA has to increase the speed of adaptation to match the increasing speed of change in our culture--again, I'm primarily talking about adaptation in program delivery, not in program elements, and certainly not in values.

jkhny, you have repeatedly claimed that Smith was "allowed to retire" rather than being fired. Do you have any evidence that BSA had the legal option to deny him his retirement benefits? Don't you think he would have been fired if he hadn't retired? While I think his behavior was hypocritical and hurts the image of Scouting and all Scouters, I haven't seen any real evidence that BSA knew about it, condoned it, or gave him anything other than what he was legally entitled to.

I would just like to say that I would counsel against using the PTA as the CO. First, there is some risk that, in some states anyway, the PTA might in fact be considered a public accomodation, and subject to anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure ACLU will consider this worth pursuing, and I think there's a good chance such a challenge will fail, but who needs the aggravation? More importantly, I just don't think a PTA makes for a very good CO (although I am sure there are exceptions). In most places, the leaders of the PTA change every year, and there is a total replacement of all parent leaders and members every few years. The PTA doesn't own the school building, and has only limited control over it. It is highly unlikely that the PTA President will be willing to spend much time being trained by BSA. As a result, the PTA is not likely to be very engaged with the unit, and the relationship will lack continuity. Plus, in many areas, you will have to worry about the possibility that the PTA itself will decide it doesn't agree with BSA's membership policies, and will decline to continue sponsoring you. (I was actually surprised that this didn't happen already at my kids' elementary school.) Personally, I think a church is the best CO, because you are likely to have more ongoing interaction--you are likely to get some of your youth members and unit leaders from the church, strengthening the long-term bonds.

"We don't want sexuality used as a political tool. we are trying to teach values and character not be a political platform for social issues." But this isn't BSA's explanation for why it doesn't permit openly gay leaders, is it? You could tell somebody this, I suppose, but it would just be your opinion, and it leaves out the minimal explanation that BSA does give, which is that homosexuals are not "morally straight." Wouldn't a truthful conversation go like this: Potential Recruit: "I've heard that openly gay people can't be Scout leaders. Is that true?" Scout Leader: "Yes." PR: "Why is that?" SL: "The Executive Board of BSA, after consultation with representatives of a cross-section of its Chartering Organizations, have stated that homosexual behavior isn't morally straight." PR: "On what do they base that conclusion?" SL: "I don't know, but I can refer you to an experienced commissioner or a Scouting professional with your question." PR: "And will that person be able to explain to my why Scouting thinks homosexuality isn't morally straight?" SL: "They'll probably tell you the same thing I told you, although they may be able to give you reasons why they think BSA's position is the right one." I'm not talking about whether BSA's position is right or wrong--I'm just talking about how well it is explained. The position on theism is explained well; the position on gay leaders really isn't. Surely anybody who (a) agrees with the position and (b) believes that BSA follows reasonable and proper procedures in arriving at and maintaining such positions, shouldn't object to BSA explaining in public what the reason is.

Hmmm...3 weeks away from being 16...held up by the SM for 60 days...maybe a SM who doesn't believe in Eagles under 16? I guess I see three options here: 1. If this kind of behavior is a pattern for this SM, go ahead and appeal. 2. If things have otherwise been pretty good in the troop for this boy, and the 60-day assignment isn't too onerous, just do it. If the SM puts up any more obstacles after that, then appeal. It isn't fair, and the SM shouldn't be imposing these additional requirements (probably), but 60 days isn't really very long. If the SM has earned your respect in other ways, you might reasonably decide to put up with this. 3. Think about switching to another troop, right now. If the boy has to appeal, I suspect his relationship with the SM will be permanently ruined in this troop anyway.

I think this might be another time to point out the differences between the no gays and no atheists membership restrictions. In my opinion, BSA has done a pretty good job of explaining why it excludes atheists. It has admitted that it is a religious organization, that it considers reverence and duty to God an element of its basic law, and that it believes that some kind of religious belief is necessary to be the best kind of citizen. You may not like this explanation, but you can understand it. The explanation for the no gays rule is a lot thinner and vaguer. It simply asserts that homosexual behavior is not morally straight, without really explaining why, or according to whose moral code. Imagine if BSA had said the following: "The largest charter organizations in BSA are religious denominations that strongly believe homosexual behavior is immoral, and we continue to believe that this is the shared fundamental moral belief of most Americans." That would be an explanation you could disagree with, but again, at least you'd understand it. (It would explain, for example, why gays are out but divorced people are in.) In fact, I can't really think of another explanation, except for one of the explanations that the denominations give (such as that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible)--but that would be accepting a sectarian doctrine. When we are recruiting, people ask us about these policies, and ask for an explanation. For the no atheists policy, you can give a pretty good answer. For the no gays one, you basically have to say, "Because National says so." Even if you agree with the policy, you can't give your reasons for agreeing as National's reasons, because you don't really know what National's reasons are.

"There seems to a growing number of scouters who would rathher be "in charge " of a scouting, rather than delivering a scouting program." I'm not sure what the evidence would be that the number of bad programs is growing. But I think your point is well-taken that even lousy programs may have done better back when they were the only game in town. So I agree that we have to improve in order to compete--but I think there may be more ways we have to adapt as well. I'm not talking about altering true timeless values here, but there may be specific program elements that should be added or altered. BSA does that, but it is sometimes too slow (look at the MBs for an example--they could really use some fresh ones.)

"I don't discount science, never have, never will, but when science refuses to acknowledge the questions of non-scientists with the aloof flip of the hand or the sactamonious you just wouldn't understand. Creationists (not literalists) can assume the same posture." I suppose there are some scientists who act that way, but there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, but just don't see the scientific evidence for young-earth creationism, or even for Intelligent Design. I think you'll find that virtually all Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates are trying to reconcile their existing relgious beliefs with the scientific evidence. But unless you're wedded to the idea of a literal creation 10,000 years ago, why bother? Why not just say that however the universe is, that's how God intended it to be? I'd like to throw out another idea about Intelligent Design: that it's not really a scientific or religious idea, but rather an aesthetic one. I personally am sympathetic to the kind of statement that, "I can't look at the stars in the sky or an infant's face and believe that there is no purpose to the Universe." (On the flip side, it's hard to look at some other things without thinking that evil is real.) It's a concept like "beauty" which really has nothing to do with science. As far as humans affecting evolution, you're probably right. Certainly, the species we've driven into extinction won't evolve any more, and it's probably true that civilization is changing human natural selection as well. For example, people with certain genetic diseases are growing up and reproducing due to medical advances who would have died in childhood before--that means that the genes giving rise to those illnesses will be more common. Is this bad? Who's to say? And it's not really evidence one way or the other for whether evolution is occuring.

In my son's troop we haven't done any MBs during regular meetings, and they still can get "enough" without ever calling anybody on the list, just by going to MB days, camp, and asking adults affiliated with the troop.