Hunt

There's an implication in the first post in this thread that BSA's membership requirements (belief in god, no avowed homosexuality) may have come belatedly. While it may be the case that these requirements have been stated more explicitly in recent years, I don't think that's because of a change in BSA--it's because they didn't need to be stated 30 years ago. I'm quite confident that if you could get into your time machine and go back to the early 1970s when I was a Scout, and could ask the leaders of BSA if they allowed atheists or homosexuals to be members or leaders, they would have looked at you like you were insane. I mean, it was a really big deal when BSA changed its rules to let women be leaders. The Stonewall riots in New York--the real beginning of the gay rights movement--were in 1969, and it was a long time before the idea of gay rights gained much acceptance in most of America. The very idea of gay scout leaders would have seemed totally outrageous to the vast majority of Americans at the time (maybe it still does, although I don't think the majority is as vast as it would have been 30 years ago).

My eyes have been opened! If I don't like the pants, there's something wrong with ME! Give me a break! For about the zillionth time, I wear the pants, but I don't think they're very good pants. FACT: that's my opinion. As I pointed out, there must be many others who agree with me, because the first two questions on the Supply Divisions FAQ are obviously responding to complaints about the pants. I've done my small bit to tell the Supply Division what I think, and I urge others to do the same thing. (Note: Even Bob White doesn't say that he actually likes the current pants, although maybe he does.)

To what extent must a MBC witness the performance of the MB requirements? It seems clear that in many cases the counselor will rely on the trustworthiness of the scout to report that the requirement has been satisfied. For example, the Camping MBC cannot be expected to accompany the scout on all his campouts and see that he put up his own tent. On the other hand, some of the requirements clearly require the scout to show or demonstrate something to the counselor. I'm interested in cases in which somebody else qualified witnesses the achievement of the requirement, and then the MBC signs off. For example, I have heard of boys performing some of the requirements for Swimming or Lifesaving for Red Cross-trained lifeguards, and then bringing a note to the registered MBC. Does anybody see a problem with this?

My son wants to keep all the MB booklets for MBs he's earned as souvenirs--if the cost is not a problem for you, your son may want to do this too. I agree that you don't need the requirements book.

As I think about this, I wonder if maybe ACLU made a tactical mistake by using the Dale case as the primary frontal assault on BSA's membership policies. Their legal argument was much weaker than the argument that government sponsorship of BSA units violates the Establishment Clause. I was pretty sure the first time I heard about the case that the current Supreme Court would never rule that a state could require the Boy Scouts to accept gay leaders if they didn't want to. It was a loser case from the beginning. But a lawsuit against a school district for sponsoring a discriminatory organization--that would have been a winner. What's more, it would have been much more likely to persuade BSA to think about "local option" on its membership requirements to preserve all those sponsorships. But with the Dale case, BSA was forced to draw a line in the sand and fight it out. So, I don't think this was BSA's plan all along, but I do tend to think that ACLU's strategy was not well thought out.

BSA may have believed that Congress would find some way to save them from having to give up government charter organizations--and there has been some (minimal) effort to do that. Personally, I don't think it would have worked, but it's hard to predict what courts will do. But it's now become clear that Congress is not willing to do much, so perhaps BSA has decided to throw in the towel on this issue. In terms of BSA getting what it wanted, I think it's fair to say--and the lawyer for BSA did say--that maintaining its membership requirements was more important than maintaining government unit sponsorship. BSA's latest action shows that this really is true.

"The Charter Org is happy and within its rights within BSA policy to set this requirement." I think the CO can exclude women from being leaders, but I don't think they can exclude women from attending activities, including campouts. The Guide to Safe Scouting says, "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders." I could be wrong about this--maybe the unit could exclude both the boy and his mom under such circumstances--but my understanding was that BSA's rules--which all COs must accept--mean that parents can never be excluded. (I would set aside the question of health requirements for high adventure.) On the issue of whether parents of new scouts should be encouraged or discouraged from coming on the first few campouts. I can see why some might want to discourage them--I have seen some very overprotective parents. But I guess I'm convinced by the argument that it's better to start training them, too. You might want to give each new parent a card with the following words printed on it: "Don't ask me, ask your patrol leader."

No policy, written or unwritten, although it has been suggested to boys that they shouldn't do too many MBs with their own fathers. The reason I give is that it's better to work with other adults. I have also heard that the Eagle Board "won't like it," but that isn't really a good reason, because there's nothing the Eagle Board can do about it if the parent is a registered MBC.

Whitewater, your questions have been answered many times, but briefly: 1. This is not about access to school facilities; it is about schools owning and operating an activity which has a religious membership requirement. 2. First, schools don't sponsor girl scout troops in the same way they own BSA units. Second, religious discrimination is different from sex discrimination because it's explicitly treated in the constitution. Third, under Title 9 schools have to provide equal access to sports for boys and girls. If you have other questions, read a couple of the recent threads on this; the answers are really quite clear, although not everybody likes them.

I put this question here, because it's sort of a philosophical question: Is it ever appropriate to say, "Yes, it's wrong to do X, but it's not that big a deal compared to other issues." This question has come to me in connection with a few discussions lately, including penny ante poker, modifications to the uniform, adults wearing badges earned as youth, cell phones at camp, wearing an earing, etc. Is there--or should there be--a difference in how we deal with "minor" and "major" issues? I guess my take is this: if it's a major issue, I think you should make strong efforts to get others to change their ways (i.e., if I learned that another unit was ignoring two-deep leadership, I would probably report that)--but if it's a minor issue, you give your opinion if asked, but mainly concentrate on dealing with your own backyard (i.e., I would prohibit penny ante poker in my own unit, but I wouldn't call down the authorities on another unit that was allowing it). What do others think--not about the specifics of a particular issue, but about how to approach issues in general?

The last post from "It's Me" makes me think one more piece of explanation might help here. Two kinds of arguments tend to get mixed up: arguments about what the law IS, and arguments about what the law SHOULD BE. What NJ has explained is what the law IS. Although not stated that way, It's Me is arguing about what the law SHOULD BE. But his or her argument does not reflect what the law currently is. There's nothing wrong with making that kind of argument--even to arguing that the Constitution should be changed--but it has to be pointed out to avoid confusion. I'd also like to add a bit to what OGE said about permissible and impermissible discrimination. Under the constitution, religion is special--it has its own clauses--as a result, there are MORE restrictions on actions that discriminate on the basis of religion than those that would discriminate on the basis of sex, for example (remember, ERA did not pass). That's why, when you make analogies with other organizations, you should use religious or anti-religious groups, not the National Honor Society, a sports team, or even the Girl Scouts.

OGE wrote: "Sometimes it better not to play into the hands of one who seeks to manipulate" For a more detailed discussing of this excellent insight, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll for a good discussion on "trolling," "flamebait," and why people may do it.

Here's some info on phobias from the American Psychiatric Association: http://www.psych.org/public_info/phobias.cfm This suggests a couple of things--first, if you encounter a boy who has a strong fear like this, it may make sense for him to seek treatment for it. According to the APA, treatment is often succussful, and the fear can be overcome. Also, whether the phobia is a disability or not depends on how much it interferes with a person's ability to perform the functions of life (as with any disability). I think if a person has a fear of water that does not respond to treatment and that prevents him from being able to swim, that is a disability that should deserve a waiver. A final point--a diagnosed phobia is not a moral failing or a personal weakness--it is a mental disorder. The person with a phobia knows there is no real danger, but can't help the reaction.

OGE, you are so right. I do think fgoodwin's question deserves an answer--would ACLU be "satisfied" if BSA pulls out of government sponsorship? I think there are a few answers to that: 1. ACLU might still pursue more tangential cases of arguable government support of BSA activities (Jamboree is an example). But this is just a matter of drawing the line of where government sponsorship ends. I predict they won't chase PTA sponsorship, for example. 2. There will likely be a series of disputes in which governments try to deny access or benefits to discriminatory organizations--ACLU might well side with the governments in those cases. But the Supreme Court's decision in the Dale case sets a high bar for those cases--ACLU can't simply sue BSA (or, for example, churches) for having exclusive membership requirements, even if there is a state anti-discrimination law. So, in short, there may still be disputes between BSA and ACLU, but they will involve the degree of government involvement that exists with BSA, and how much (if any) is permissible. To put it another way, with the current decision by BSA to move out of government sponsorship, there is not much more the ACLU is likely to gain by pursuing BSA, so they are likely to put their resources elsewhere.

What's your point in sharing this with us, Merlyn? Obviously, it's unrelated to your quest to get BSA out of government facilities. Do you want us to feel bad about being affilitated with a big, bad organization like BSA? If so, forget it. There are bad apples in BSA, just like everywhere else. Currently, BSA is more likely to err or the side of banning a Scouter based on flimsy claims than the other way around. There's no "issue" here, as far as I can see. If the acts were covered up, those who did so should be punished. You won't find any disagreement here. Your post was just flame bait, and Ed obliged you, and you responded predictably. Stop wasting your time, and ours.

I am quite confident that a federal court would find that there was insufficient state action to involve the Establishment clause if a private PTA (even if it was the only PTA at the school) sponsored a BSA unit. There would be no expenditure of government funds, for one thing. Also, it would be even more futile than the current effort, since it would be easy enough to form a parents' group to sponsor the unit seamlessly.

Here's another little imaginary scene on this topic: SM: So, Joe, are you all ready for your Star Board? Joe: I think so, yes. SM: Joe, before you go in, I'd like to talk to you about something. As you know, Mr. X always participates in our Boards of Review. He founded this troop 30 years ago, and he's done a lot for all of us over the years. Joe: You're right, he has. SM: Well, Mr. X has trouble accepting the idea of a Scout with an earring. Personally, I have no trouble with it, there's nothing wrong with it, and we certainly have no rule against it. But I wonder if you'd be willing to take it out, just for the Board of Review, for Mr. X's sake. Joe: Sure, I can do that. SM: Thanks, Joe, I knew you'd understand. Oh, he'll also ask you if you have a clean handkerchief. Joe: I remember that from First Class. SM: If you don't have one, I can lend you one. Joe: No, we all know to bring one. SM: Good--I know you'll do great. Of course, Mr. X has to earn this kind of consideration.

NJ is right in that some schools have overreacted to Establishment Clause decisions and have gone too far in interfering with Free Excercise. Examples might be efforts to prevent a religious club from meeting at the school, while secular clubs are allowed to meet. That's a no-no. Another example (in my opinion, anyway) would be telling the valedictorian not to mention God in his speech (really a free speech, rather than free exercise point, though). But I think that some of the posters in this thread have also gotten confused between establishment and exercise. Requiring that schools not sponsor scouting units in no way interferes with the free exercise of religion--those units can still meet in the schools like any other community group. They simply can't be owned by the school, any more than a public school could sponsor a United Methodist Youth Fellowship group. To repeat, the school MUST allow the BSA or the UMYF to meet at the school if it allows other groups to meet there, but it can't sponsor the relgious group. I think the First Amendment is just fine as it is.

"If the school only recognizes one official PTA, then I would still go after sponsorship by that PTA, as it's an official school organization." You'd lose, though. The PTA is a private, not-for-profit organization. I also feel quite confident that the courts would draw a line between the school sponsoring the unit (endorsement of religion) and the PTA sponsoring the unit (no endorsement by the school of the Scout unit). They will say the connection with the school is too tenuous to suggest a constitutional violation. I suspect the ACLU will be too smart to waste its money on any such claim.

"No one wins here, everyone loses." I don't agree. Although it will be a procedural pain for a while, the vast majority of units will make the transition with little difficulty, and most will continue meeting in the same place. The pressure to change the membership requirements will be much less (whether that's a win or loss depends on your viewpoint). What's more, most units will end up with COs that are able to give them better support. In the long run, I think it's better for BSA to disentangle itself from all these government entities. Why did BSA (and DOD) "cave" to the ACLU? I suspect that, despite the rhetoric quoted in the article above, they realized they would lose the cases, and then they would be forced by court orders to get out of all these public organizations. This way, they can do it voluntarily, and they have the ACLU to blame rather than federal courts. Also, doing it all at once may make it easier to recruit new COs because of the PR. I will add, as I've said before, that I think ACLU's concern over this was overblown because of the fact that in the vast majority of cases the "sponsorship" of BSA units by schools and other public entities involved very little or no expenditure of public funds, and really amounted to providing the units with a place to meet--in fact, the net flow of value may have been to the schools as a result of service projects. But as a matter of law, the ACLU is technically right about its point--that a government entity can't sponsor a religiously restrictive group--and BSA is right to separate.

Having grown up in redneck country, and having a bit of the tinge left myself, I can't see how this is racist or sexist (unless the boys are trying to make fun of rednecks). The normal context for this phrase would be something like, "I pulled the motor outta that Chevy yesterdy, and I'm gonna git 'er done today." But apparently it has become a catchphrase associated with a particular comedian, so it may have picked up other connotations.

I wouldn't believe the Washington Times if it said the sky was blue, but this article does purport to be from UPI, not one of the Times' own writers. I can't comment on the specifics, because I don't know, but it is obvious to any casual observer that contrary to the expectations of many Enlightenment thinkers, and many others since, relgious beliefs have simply refused to fade away with the acceptance of science. In the U.S., belief in God has run at about 90% for the last decade or so--worldwide, about 87% of people belong to some kind of religious group (although I suppose some of them may not be believers). According to a 2000 Gallup poll, only about 8% of people worldwide could be called atheists (although there are others who "don't know" and it's not clear to me if China was included). I don't agree with the idea that a growing trust of science will support religious belief--indeed, I think science clearly challenges some religious beliefs (it pretty much did away with the belief that the sun revolved around the earth, for example). But I think that as science evolves, it becomes clearer and clearer that religion is a seperate thing from science, and ultimately can't be disproved. I would also point out that atheists are not likely to get much traction until they are represented by nicer, friendlier people than the likes of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Michael Newdow--so far, there has been no Ellen DeGeneres of atheism.

The school district where I live recently banned almost all fliers (or "backpack mail") from outside organizations, strictly because they wanted to exclude flyers from an explicitly evangelistic religious group. (They allowed outside sports leagues to continue to send flyers, which has complicated the situation.) This has really hurt Cub Scout recruiting--as well as Girl Scouts, ballet schools, camps, etc. Scouts have generally been allowed to recruit at "Back to School" nights run by PTAs (along with other community groups. At these events, groups set up tables and parents and kids are free to visit those they wish to--no captive audience.

Although I can't say what was going through the scout's mind, it could have been the following: "When I joined this troop there was all this stuff about how it's boy-led and fun, and suddenly here I am in some kind of inquisition with yet another adult who is trying to push me around over something my own parents think is perfectly OK. Forget this!"

I think you'd have to know more details about the confrontation to really judge--but it may be that the boy understood the rules better than the adult did.