littlebillie

some employers "encourage" their employees to contribute to the United Way. There is no "formal" requirement, yet a lot of "actual" pressure, so to do.

IF the "state workers" in question are pressured in any way to participate in contributions, then this is a questionable decision at best.

By pressuring an employee into supporting a charity - the United Way, say - then arguably that employee has LESS to contribute to a cause of personal choice. This would be wrong - yet since most employers only encourage such support and do not make it out-and-out mandatory, there doesn't seem like there's much to be done from a legal perspective unless the employees want to join any future BSA activity and testify to the 'pressure' and reduction of discretionary funds.

you know, it's just too easy to get snide or rude or just snipe at someone when you're safe behind a keyboard and a pseudonym.

but to do so REALLY evalues anything and everything you say.

the gay and atheist issues are probably the only REAL controversies the BSA faces; whatever side you support will only be hurt if you allow yourself to be seduced by anonymity.

yes - we all get a little snippy now and then, and that's going to happen in any discussion involving matters like these, that go to the very core of social structure. BUT MOST OF US can recover, and get back some sense of decorum and propriety.

We even see some heartfelt apologies.

But for ANYone who is here and sincerely believes in the worth of scouting, to do anything less than try to show basic respect for our fellow posters just chips away at our own dignity.

I don't stand on the popular side of the fence, BUT I have huge respect for most folks here, regardless - because they have the program in their hearts and THAT means they have the good of our children in their hearts.

and that's a good thing.

but if you decide to make posting here primarily some kind of verbal sniper egoistical water tower cess pool - well, you've got issues you really need to work thru before I let you near MY kid...

"then on what basis have you embraced your faith as truth?"

the Sufis say that God makes Himself known to each group in a time and manner and face and place most appropriate to each group; thus, Buddha, Ganesha, Mohammed, Jesus - no one is more nor less true than another, just best suited to a people and so to the individuals thereof.

When I lead a prayer, it is to "Lord, Thou, Shepherd of many flocks".

God is wise enough to know that the spiritual needs of 20th Century Kansans, and 15th century Plains Indians and !Kung of Africa and ... so on ... all differ. He can show many faces, and in His infinite wisdom and kindness does so...

"Unfortunately, these days, many folks - maybe most folks, prefer the former description of faith as opposed to the latter. "

well, most folks I know have been able to find both, and so need not prefer either over the other.

packsaddle,

our first Pack had a couple of Cubs from a 2-dad family. since a) it's NOT the boys that set polciy, and b) the entire orientation thing is NOT to be addressed at all, anyway, then secure gay parents can avail their sons of the much good that is in the program.

I can't speak for all of Los Angeles, but I am told that it's not an isolated case.

I think you're right about the numbers - though gay family numbers are on the increase, there are still darned few. and of course, only a fraction of those join scouting - so in terms of developing any real clout, it ain't gonna happen, at least not for a LONG time. BUT. Their very presence will have an impact on the hetero rank'n'file, I expect.

Over the years, I've notice that being a loving, devoted, nurturing and strongly committed parent seems to win respect beyond or in spite of a number of differences.

Anyway, once the dust settles from the latest SCOTUS toe-in-the-pond, if gay marriage becomes legal - well, there'll be a lot more spoons in THIS broth, I'm thinking...

"we are getting further and further from what the writers actually intended"

that's an interesting view. really, all we can do is interpret what they wrote, not what they 'intended'. just figuring out what they wrote has been hard enough in some cases. as to what they 'intended' - well, they INTENDED that state governments choose their Senators, and that sure got changed. some amendments clarify, and some alter.

'If these "mainstream" denominations change (which means they are actually leaving the mainstream)...'

well, I'd've thought that if enought of them do it, it redefines how the main stream flows in the first place... and really, does THAT matter, for either side, deep down in the heart of things???

"The answer of course is no."

yeah, see, this is interesting. back in the 70's, when the policy statements were made, gay families weren't even a blip in the screen.

of course, things are different today. gay families are out there in increasing numbers, and the BSA will see a population of second class parents building up.

what's interesting is that while - theoretically - the whole gender orientation thing is invisible to the boys (yeah, sure!), at least everyone should realize it's an adult-created policy that's polarized public opinion, not something that the boys have really had a hand in, Cozza aside.

BUT - when those gay parents are not allowed to participate in their sons' scouting lives to the same degree as other parents - well, that's kind of an in-your-face situation.

is there a position statment on this yet, I wonder?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/religion030702.html

Merlyn, I'm eager to read your comments on this!

"You asked WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN who can make policies and who those people were. So you did ask who carved it."

no, to your second sentence above. caps in the first reflect your seemingly correct understanding. I asked where it was written who can, I did not ask who can. there is a heck of a difference. and when followed up with my 'This is more of a "please point me at the source documents"' I'd've thought that was pretty clear.

WHERE ARE THE RULES SET DOWN ABOUT WHO AND WHAT - not what ARE the rules, you see.

BTW, "They are not distributed outside of scouting offices so that they can administer updates" really ignores the efficiency of a single online source updateable without wasting paper and thus trees. I assume here, of course, the ubiquity of PCs and the internet - so far, I haven't seen a local council office without it, but even if there are some, restricting hard-copy just to those could benefit everyone and cut costs.

for Cubs, Akela is a leader, and Akela can be a parent. That parent might be gay.

Technical question for Bob White - Are gay parents prohibited from signing off on their Cub sons' requirements?

the phrase "to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority" rather mischaracterizes most such defense, and in the case of one of the more obvious tyrannies - eminent domain - well, pretty much they stand powerless. the majority of the majority is happy to let things ride - this isn't tyranny as much as apathy or indifference, which may be worse than tyranny but that's a different topic.

so it's not tyranny of the majority so much as the interests and assumptions of the majority, and regardless, only recently have we begun to truly understand that the community has rights as well.

the founders of the constitution were establishing a society that would respect the rights of the individual within the greater framework of a nation. within, not above. but even so, they were likewise establishing a nation that would respect those individuals.

I was asking where you can see what's been set in stone - not who carved it. Any info on that available to the browsing public?

"Keeping in mind that the voluntary membership in a private organization is not a right."

But - and this is part of MLR's constant watchdogging - as long as the BSA accepts public (i.e., government-sponsored) support, it is blurring the lines between public and private. Whether that support is direct funds or the free use of public lands or facilities, the BSA itself weakens its own case.

But that's a side issue. The problem with using "position statements" to set membership policy - as opposed to a fully defined and delineated document or other instrument that states clearly who is and is not welcome - is that in fact there can be unilateral and arbitrary changes made at any point without knowledge or consent of the full membership. I'm not even clear where it is written that even Executive can Venn out certain groups of the "boys" mentioned in the charter.

In all of the discussion - and BW, this is not throwing a gauntlet, this is a real request for information - where is it written who can make those policy statments, and who can decide whether or not Wicca or whatever is a faith, etc? This is more of a "please point me at the source documents" rather than "what gives YOU the right, buddy?" kind of statement.

What are the rules for the making of rules? I can readily find a copy of the US Constitution, but are there accessible by-laws and rules of procudure for the BSA?

Thanks for any info!

Wallace,

there IS a Hindu religious award, and Hinduism is a polytheistic faith. thought you should know...

siver-shark,

um - ever roll a snowball down a hill?

Hey, huge question - what kind of insurance liability might this represent, and is it covered in the BSA's policies?

ed, isn't THAT some kind of divine discrimination? How about those who sincerely and devoutly accept Buddha or Mohammad or Ganesha or...? put up a sign saying "Gone to Perdition"?

'"avowed" adulteress...'? first, she's not married, right? and the father's not married? and they plan to marry? so she's not an adultress, is she? Technically? i imagine that she is, really, is a "self-evidenced fornicator". or something like that.

Anyway, just when DO they plan to get married? during this last month - and the first few months after that - she's not going to be doing too much work for the Scouts, I shouldn't think, so why not let her go on hiatus and re-up once they've wed?

just curious... unless they're planning to put it off TOO long?

as far as anyone "missing the boat on a parenting opportunity", I think everyone who's spoken out against this child-with-child-in-front-of-children has exercised parenting skills. while it may not be a discussion with their kids, it is a level of involvement that says "I do NOT believe my child is ready for all of this just yet, and I request that he not be exposed to it at this point in time." whether or not you agree with the position, that IS part of parenting.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, I'd think. hmmm - unless the old Scottish Common Law is mixed into all of this?

frankly, if Texas were to take a stand against this poor girl, it might show certain critics (who, me?) that they walk the walk. and if they don't, it may be because they're getting ready to alter the gay stance.

regardless - putting the stamp of leadership approval on this girl seems to send a passive message on a subject Scouting urges its leaders to actively avoid...

it'd be interesting to read an article about a married Scouter getting expelled for an affair (or a single one for shacking up, or a Scout getting kicked out for losing his virginity) and seeing how all the interest groups would react to it.

you know, that goose/gander sauce thing...

until this happens there will always be cries of hypocrisy. "don't ask don't tell" covers a lot more territory than orientation.

well, the ruling is fair if applied across the board to all organizations and all special interests. I mean, singling out Boy Scouts for gays should also extend to no GSUSA-associated judges trying boys, no Jewish judges trying Christians, no UW-donors trying charity fraud for ANYone...

" I favor the gonvernment funding projects based on their merit, not who is sponsoring them. " ...and wouldn't part of that merit be whether or not they discriminate in the service provided?

"The difference is, the federal governments charter is for all people within the domain of the United States, while the BSAs charter is simply for it members...". just wonder wher in the BSA charter it says "certain boys" or "select boys"? I thought I'd read the original text, but I guess I skimmed by that...

the only real way to achieve a true world community is to establish and nurture a true commnity of children. And NOT something established according to community demographics to reflect the composition of some particular city or town, but a school ommunity with equal numbers of as many different folks as you can get. just using raw, unbalanced numbers can unduly influence a developing world view.

as many black kids as white as brown as yellow as red as whatever.

the racial stuff is easy if you start kids early AND if parents are willing to sacrifice their own prejudices for a better future. yes - many are. sadly - many aren't.

it's religion that becomes a larger problem. all folks are brothers? yeah that's easy enough. but if your holy book says kill the infidel, and mine says turn the other cheek - well, that particular example gets resolved pretty quickly, I guess, but you see where it goes.

a truly devout person, seeking to live up to the letter of God's law, well... "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" certainly justifies Salem, and indeed, is all the proof needed for the existence of witches. (Well, unless they've ALL been killed off...) we can learn to be skinblind, but the God thing is a LOT tougher...

ed,

my point to you was that folks shouldn't care if the UW DOES discriminate, since that's what the Boy Scouts do - and besides, since they're not a federal agency, it ain't really discrimination - and in a roundabout way, I guess you're agreeing with me.

The UW can be seen as discriminating against EVERYONE it doesn't fund, as far as that goes, but it wouldn't be a very concise use of the word.

Regardless, it looks like we agree on this issue. And really, all I was doing was pointing out the difference between the focus of Merlyn's activities and the United Way. And it seems like we both recognize this.

I think... :-)

Ed,

Exactly. That's why I say it's different (than public funding) and their own call to make. But it's clearly not discrimination (unless they choose to ignore or return any monies SPECIFICALLY requested to go to the BSA - I'm not saying this would be discriminatory, only that it's not clear if is, at least to me, in a legal sense).

Regardless, even if a case is made that it IS disriminatory in throry or even practice, don't they have a right to fund whomsoever they choose? I don't see any cults crying fowl just because the UW won't buy them birds of paradise to sacrifice at midnight; yet the UW DOES support various church-linked causes.

Regardless of whether you call it "discrimination", if this is something they believe is right, then they stand under the same umbrella as the Boy Scouts.