Hunt

Not to belabor this too much, but if you take a look at the canons of the Episcopal Church USA (see http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_I_OrgAdmin.pdf), you'll see that the church does discriminate on religious grounds--for example, no person who has not been baptized may take communion, or become a member, and adults are "expected" to make a "mature affirmation" upon joining. But really, it would be absurd to criticize a church for discriminating on the basis of religion, at least with regard to membership or hiring of clergy.

From a legal basis, I don't think there's any basis to argue that discriminating against atheists isn't discriminating on the basis of religion. (What "creed" means is harder to say--it may mean discriminating among religions--but it's irrelevant because the clause in question uses both terms). And while the Episcopal Church may be a "welcoming community," can you really become a full member without professing faith? But it is certainly true that the storage company has the right to interpret its own rule, so it's certainly OK to ask them if the scouts qualify. If they say no, you wouldn't have any recourse anyway.

I have to disagree. BSA clearly discriminates on the basis of religion. If you don't share the religious views of BSA (i.e., there is a God, of some kind), you can't belong. I happen to agree with this position of BSA, so this isn't a criticism, just a description. Thus, I don't think a scout troop is eligible for the storage company's free offer. (But...you could ask if they provide the benefit to religious organizations, like churches--if they do, then you could accept it too, it seems to me.)

If you miss you-know-who, you can find more of his wisdom at rec.scouting.issues.

One suggestion on squelching--if you're truly going to squelch somebody, why not act like they don't exist after that? If you're not going to read their messages, don't critique them.

Have you ever known a couple of people both of whom you basically liked, but who just couldn't stand each other? Where the actions and statements of each seemed to drive the other to extremes? I'll bet you have--sometimes they're even married to each other. So, while I think it would be better for both of them to really and truly ignore each other--I don't feel the need to ignore them. I also have the amazing ability to move my eyes past a post I don't want to read, even without squelching the poster.

The judge ruled the leasing process to be unconstitutional because he thought it favored a religious organization as opposed to other organizations. However, a cursory review of the facts--again, as the judge recites them--shows that this just isn't true. The city and the BSA entered into a mutually beneficial deal that was made through a public process. I predict that this is what the Supreme Court will say if it gets this case. Again, it appears to me that Merlyn's real objection with this deal is the city doing business with BSA at all, not its failure to seek competitive bids. (I mean really--BSA was offering to pay for and maintain the facility, and let other groups use it--all it got was use of the land--you really think another group would have offered the city a better deal?)

"I'm an atheist and I'm not going to allow my own government to discriminate against atheists by subsidizing a group that excludes atheists."

When you wrote that, Merlyn, I assumed that your use of "subsidizing" had something to do with use of your tax dollars. I will rephrase my comment to say that it is absurd to say that San Diego is "subsidizing" BSA in the case at hand, when the opposite appears to be the case--which Ed understands, and you (and the judge) don't.

The judge's decision (and your defense of it) try to suggest that there was a "sweetheart deal" between the city and the BSA, because the leasing opportunity wasn't make available to other entities. But the actual facts--as the judge recites them--make that obviously untrue--BSA approached the city with a proposal and a big sack of money (makes me wonder if you read the opinion). It was all done in the open, and obviously nobody else showed up with a bigger sack of money. This wasn't a case in which, say, the city was looking for an operator for its aquatic center and failed to seek competitive bids. But I suspect, Merlyn--correct me if I'm wrong--that you wouldn't be satisfied if the city had accepted competitive bids--you would oppose the city leasing the land to the BSA under any circumstances, right?

Well, Merlyn, I have to say that if that's your focus, you're really wasting your time posting here; BSA will change its position on gays long, long before it will change its position on God--many more members (like me) support BSA on that one. If your focus is trying to get BSA kicked out of government facilities, it's really a waste of your time to talk to BSA members about it. Are you just gloating?

I also have to point out that in the San Diego case it's really absurd to talk about your (or anybody else's) tax dollars going to support religion, when clearly the BSA saved the city tax dollars. That's part of why I predict the decision will be overturned, especially with respect to the aquatic center.

Merlyn, since you avoided my question, let me pose it more pointedly: Would you continue to criticize BSA for discriminating against gays if if stated that its policy was to leave it up to chartering organizations to determine whether to permit gay leaders or members?

I read the opinion, and I think it is highly likely that the decision will be reversed, although it may have to go to the Supreme Court. It would be easy for a court to find that the City's action had a primarily secular purpose (the construction of an aquatic center that would benefit multiple groups, not just the Scouts), and that no reasonable person would think that the City's action in leasing the property to the scouts would support religious indoctrination. Also, the judge depends primarily on the idea the City should have sought competing bids for the lease--but he essentially ignores what really happened, which was that the Scouts approached the city to propose the idea, which was then hashed out publicly over several years. I think a reviewing court could easily say that under those facts no true preference was given to a religious organization. This really looks like an "arm's-length" deal in which both sides got something of value--and there is no hint that the City "chose" the BSA to build this facility because of its religious nature. Considering how much money BSA spent, it hardly seems like a sweetheart deal--indeed, the aquatic center only got built because there was a BSA contributor willing to put up the $$$.

But all that being said, I basically agree with OldGreyEagle--who needs the aggravation?

PS--question for Merlyn--leaving the issue of religion aside, would your objections against BSA and its use of public facilities be satisfied if it left the decision of whether to allow gay leaders/members to chartering organizations? Or would you only be satisfied if BSA required all chartering organizations to allow gay leaders/members?

Bob White wrote: "As a volunteer member I would find it incredibly hypocritical to belong to an organizations whose values I resented as reflected in some of the posts."

I agree with this, to a point. Somebody who thinks BSA is a conspiracy of evil probably should not belong. But surely you wouldn't think this of somebody who, like me, merely thinks that the question of gay leadership/membership should be left up to COs? In fact, I would probably not want my son to be in a troop with gay leaders (just as I wouldn't want him to be in a troop that banned female leaders, or that required leaders belong to a particular church). Indeed, I would be on the other side of this issue if the question was whether BSA should require all COs to eliminate discrimination against gays (as it does with racial discrimination). I just think it's odd for BSA to tell denominations with gay clergy that they can't sponsor a troop with gay leaders.

Let me put this another way--the suggestion that somebody should quit if they are suggesting a radical change in core policies has some bite. Thus, somebody who wants to eliminate the belief in God requirement is, in my judgement, advocating a truly radical change. But, also in my judgement, leaving the gay issue to COs would not be a radical change in core policies. It would not require a rewriting of the Scout Oath or Law, or the Guide to Safe Scouting, or the Handbook, etc. Now if the leaders of BSA want to make a rule that anybody who thinks the way I do can't be a member, that's their prerogative. But they haven't done that, so I feel that my views are fully consistent with staying in the organization.

As a new advancement chair, one of the first things I am trying to do is make sure the records of advancement are in order, starting with the Life Scouts. I have found a few "anomalies," and expect to find others. My question is, which ones need to be fixed (and can they be fixed)? I don't want any of these boys to have unpleasant surprises when they go for Eagle (especially if the problems aren't their fault).

Here are some of the things that concern me:

1. Board of Review for prior ranks not properly constituted: i.e., may have included ASM, non-registered persons, etc.

2. Blue cards not fully filled out--i.e., stamped at camp, not clearly dated, signed by counselor but not by SM, etc.

3. Prior rank given prematurely (i.e., not all requirements appear to have been met)--but rank signed off, BOR held, COH, etc. Again, appears to be fault of adults, not the boy.

4. Merit badge counselor not registered.

(I'm not sure--yet--that all of these conditions exist.)

Assume that advancement reports were submitted to the Council and no questions were raised along the way. Do we--can we--go back and "fix" these problems? What kind of problems will actually cause issues for Eagle review? Thanks.

"Anyone who moves to a foreign country and takes up arms against the United States, has voluntarily relinquished any rights he had as a citizen. In response to the question in the subject line...who cares?"

Even if you agree with this--shouldn't a person have the opportunity to try to show he didn't do this? Maybe Hamdi did take up arms against the US--but Judge Doumar wasn't convinced. I will tell you that I know Judge Doumar, and he takes no BS from anybody. He is also about as far from a bleeding heart liberal as you can get.

No, the BSA has the right to toss you out if you publicly criticize their patch placement rules--they are, in fact, a private organization that has the right to set its own membership requirements. But most organizations don't kick people out because they disagree with some aspect of the organization's policies. They might kick you out if you publicly criticize a "core" value--i.e., you might get kicked out of some churches if you deny the divinity of Christ. But I just don't see how expressing the opinion that COs ought to have the authority to determine whether gays can be leaders or members is a denial of the core values of scouting--since that authority has been given to COs on many other such decisions. Certainly, morality and reverence are core scouting values, but in most contexts the COs have been allowed to determine how those values affect membership and leadership requirements.

There are many denominations for many different reasons--churches have split over doctrinal differences and social or political issues. In some cases, denominations exist in the US because they came over with a particular immigrant group. Others were started from scratch by people unhappy with existing choices. There have been mergers, too--for example, the United Methodist Church is a combination of the Methodist Church and the United Brethren.

The difference is between "de facto" and "de jure" discrimination--I suspect that AME Zion churches do not officially discriminate against whites, any more than mainline "white" churches officially discrimninate against blacks. It's a different matter entirely whether a particular congregation "welcomes" people of other races. I don't think BSA can generally be expected to look at more than the official policies.

On the actual subject of this thread: The United Methodist Church is one in which the mass of members tend to be more conservative than the leaders (a condition that seems to be reversed in some other denominations). Thus I tend to agree that the General Conference will continue to disallow ordination of gays--if they don't, the church will probably split over it, or at least lose many, many members and clergy.

NJ's point, I think, is not that hard to understand: BSA deviates from its claim to be non-sectarian when it adheres to the religious teachings of some sects while rejecting the teaching of others. But I think we'd probably all support BSA's decision to do so in some cases: for example, BSA doesn't allow discrimination based on race, so presumably would not allow a church that discriminated on the basis of race to be a CO. Most of us would shrug off a claim that BSA is sectarian because it doesn't allow such churches as CO. On the other hand, we'd presumably all agree that BSA had ceased to be non-sectarian if, say, it announced that only religions celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday could be COs. The difficulty here is deciding which kind of rule the gay ban is--is it something that is so fundamental that NO unit should be allowed to do things differently (like the race discrimination issue) or is it something that should be left up to the CO (like virtually every other religious issue--including whether women can be leaders)? While it's obviously up to those who run the BSA to make such a decision, I assume that they are persons of good will, and making reasonable, thoughtful arguments to such persons is never "howling at the moon."

You might try to get the new charter organization to ask the old one to give it the money and equipment--they might be willing to honor such a request if it comes from somebody other than the people with whom they've been having a conflict. However, if they are planning on keeping the old troop going with new people, you can probably forget it.

I have some contrarian ideas about this. First of all, it seems to me that a deeper question is whether the boys are willing to work. If they will come out to perform labor on a troop member's Eagle project and do other work (like Scouting for Food, etc.), then I'm not sure lack of interest in fundraising is such a great character flaw. Second, I hate fundraising that requires kids to sell stuff to relatives, friends, and neighbors. Most of them don't really want the stuff, and are just being nice. It's not much different from begging, really. My son's troop does a couple of fundraisers that require concentrated effort on a couple of days--mulch delivery and fairgrounds cleanup. In general, the boys (and parents) support this activity.

But what would happen if he, in fact, joined when he was 10 and a half without getting the AOL or finishing 5th grade? Assuming everything else was in order, would that really cause him not to get his Eagle rank? How could you fix the problem 3, 4, or more years later?

Just a comment here--while it's OK to have scouts sign off on advancement requirements, it may contribute to a pernicious problem--retesting at Boards of Review. As many threads here attest, even scouters who know better often do this--I think they're less likely to do so if the requirement has been signed off by, say, the Scoutmaster. I was just talking to a kid (in another troop, thankfully) who "failed" a Board of Review because he was hesitant in showing skills and tying knots. His dad (rightly) intervened and another Board was convened promptly and this time he "passed." As long as some scouters have that wrong-headed attitude, it may be the best advice for scouts to get their requirements signed off by an adult, and the Scoutmaster if possible.

At my church, there are many committees, working groups, task forces, study groups, boards, etc. That sounds like there are lots of people involved, right? Well, when you look at the membership of those groups...it's the same people over and over. It's like pulling teeth to get anybody else to do anything. I see the same thing with troops and packs--sure, there's a committee--it's made up of the same parents who are always around with the troop--maybe the same for the COR. The idea that the committee is going to have a number of people who may not be hands-on involved in the troop, or that the CO will provide such people, is not the reality for many of us, particularly if the CO isn't that big--indeed, if the CO is a church, those people are already on five different committees.

I guess for me, the bottom line is if you can only get four or five adults who are willing to donate their time to a troop, what should they be doing? You can't wave a magic wand and get more people, or get more free time for the people you do have. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and forget about the CO or the Committee--but I agree that it's pointless to feel guilty if you're doing the best you can with what you have.

While we're being picky, note that it says the SM approves the "project," not a particular scout's request that service hours count. Thus (for example) it seems to me that a SM could announce that peer tutoring is an approved "project" and that those engaging in it after his announcement could get the hours counted. Or if a particular Eagle project is approved, the individual helpers would not have to have their participation separately approved for the hours to count.

There are people that most of us would consider "great" that might nevertheless have moral failings that might make us prefer not to have them as leaders of our children. Benjamin Franklin might be such a person, for example. I do think we have to be careful about casting the first stone when we judge somebody's fitness, because the microscope can be turned on anybody. Is a divorced person fit to be a SM? How about someody who lives with a person of the opposite sex to whom he is not married? Or somebody who is a habitual gambler? Or somebody who typically speeds? I'm not saying we can't make judgements--far from it, they have to be made--but you have to look at the whole picture and proceed with some humility.

Whether civil disobedience (or outright rebellion) was justified is judged by posterity. Right now, for example, the weight of opinion is that Rosa Parks' and George Washington's actions were justified, but that those of Timothy McVeigh were not.

But I also think there's a difference between civil disobedience designed to make a political point, and civil disobedience based on a belief that the law has treated you unfairly as an individual. In the first case, the person will usually be willing to take the punishment--that's part of the political statement. In the second, the person will often knuckle under and pay up when the law gets around to forcing the issue.

How about this--would you support a person for a troop leadership position if he had been arrested several times at anti-WTO demonstrations?