NJCubScouter

I agree with BadenP and Scoutingagain. I also think there is a lot of misunderstanding "out there" about what the proposed policy actually is. The media focuses on "the Boy Scouts may admit gay members" and a lot of people think it will affect their unit, and the result appears to be that some people are getting ready to stampede out the door, over nothing. (Well, almost nothing.) I saw a lot of this misunderstanding last week when the subject came up among the adults assembled at our troop meeting. (It was kind of interesting because as far as I know, our troop has never had a "group discussion" of this subject before, or at least in the past 10 years.) Misunderstanding of both the current policy and the prospective future policy was rampant. I tried to clear up the situation, but some people weren't ready to listen. And it wasn't that anyone was really upset -- I think the Scouters in our troop are prepared for our CO to impose an "inclusive" policy if given the opportunity to do so, and nobody is likely to leave over it (though I'm not sure about some of the parents) -- it's more that people think they know the facts and aren't ready to believe otherwise. I would "credit" BSA National, and the haphazard and confusing way they have handled this issue over the years (and especially in the last few weeks) for the widespread misunderstanding of the situation and the proposed change.

WalnutDC, do you think they are really going to let their charters expire because some OTHER units may no longer be automatically excluding gay leaders? I'll believe it when it actually happens. It seems so illogical. I guess I have seen stranger things in my life, but not much.

I get the JSON error about 25 percent of the time I try to post. Yesterday I got a new one, "You are not authorized to post this message." I wanted to ask it, who is authorized to post the message I wrote, if not me? But it's just a computer, so I figured I probably wouldn't get a response.

After communicating with Terry, the owner of this site, I wish to update and correct what I said before about the Forum Runner app for the iPad, which I assume also is an app for the iPhone, iPod touch, etc. Here's the story: This app is NOT affiliated with, subscribed to by, or being promoted by Scouter.com. As I said earlier, the app does NOT appear to work with Scouter.com (in other words, this site cannot be accessed through the app.) The popup I received seems to be an attempt to get forum members to bug their forum owners into signing up with the owner of the app. Apologies for any confusion created by my earlier posts.

Eagledad, I don't have time to respond to all that. I even agree with bits and pieces of it. But to address your last point: Is this a new thing, the strong having power over the weak? I think that is the story of much of human history, and sometimes the strong have used religion as a weapon. But I think that is how you and Merlyn started this conversation, and I have no desire to go around-and-around about it again, so that's probably my last word on the subject.

I don't know if we have a bunch of "hams" in our troop or what, but we never seem to have a shortage of Scouts willing to stand up at the front table at a COH and hand out awards or even "say a few words" themselves. (We have a few shy ones too, of course.) I guess it helps that we have an SPL and (currently) four ASPL's, which is too many, but that's another issue.

Barry says to me: "As for the other thing, you said the BSA was not founded with god as an untouchable source of morality. I simply pointed out that was because that was the normal accepted view of god during the time the BSA was created." I went back and found what I actually said, which was: "So if the BSA policy on religion was founded on the basis that you say it is, I don't belong in the BSA either. But it isn't, and I do." I can see how you got one from the other, the problem is that I was a little careless with my verbs. I said "was founded", and then I said "is" (isn't) when I really meant to be speaking in the present tense both times. Regardless of what the thinking was in the 1910's, if the CURRENT basis for the religion requirement is that there can be no morality without God, it doesn't make any sense, because the BSA allows in members who do not believe that God is the source of all morality. I meant to be speaking about the present day, and as you point out, "the BSA has expanded it's list of acceptable gods." As for the Oath and Law, the vast majority of the principles stated in them do not require a belief in God -- especially if you believe, as I do, that it was mankind that came up with the idea that it is good to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, etc. etc. (along with the Ten Commandments and all other statements about what is lawful/unlawful or good/bad), all by ourselves. Obviously, if "avowed atheists" were to be permitted in the BSA, "reverent" would need to be redefined or at least clarified. I think an atheist can still be "reverent", similar to the way that our hypothetical "Deist" can. "Duty to God" would need to be addressed. Do you need to believe in God to promise to do your duty to God? I guess that would be an issue. The Declaration of Religious Principle would need to be changed. I think all of these obstacles could be overcome if there was a consensus to try to overcome them, but there probably isn't, at least for now.

Well, I decided to gamble the $2 and download the app... but I can't find scouter.com in there anywhere. I tried several different searches, but got nothing. I assume the site is "registered" with the app, because otherwise the promotional popup would not have popped up. Right? Anyone?

When entering the forum just now on my iPad, I got a popup ad for an app for scouter.com, I clicked it and it took me to an app called Forum Runner for VBulletin. It costs $2, which is fine as long as it provides some advantage over the iPad's regular browser. Has anyone used this? What does it do? What do you think?

I have made a couple of tries at writing a comment on the exchange between Eagledad and Merlyn about my religious beliefs, and on Eagledad's comments to me, but it was taking too long to write, so for now I will just say this: I find it amusing that my religious beliefs are the subject of discussion. They are a little too complicated to describe in one sentence and I do not feel like getting into a whole discussion about them. I suppose that some of my beliefs are similar to those of the "Deists", but to say that I am a "Deist" isn't really accurate. That word sounds too much like I go to Deist meetings or something. I don't really like to label my religious beliefs. When people ask me what religion I am, I usually say either "Jewish" or "Reform Jewish", or if I wish to be more specific and it is clear that the person is asking about actual religious beliefs as distinct from my ethnic, cultural and traditional background (which is, unreservedly, Jewish), I might say "mostly Jewish." (I realize that that isn't very specific.) There is a lot of overlap between Deism and Judaism anyway, though even most Reform Jews believe that God plays some active role in the world. Not all, though. I celebrate the Jewish holidays with my mother and brothers and their families, and I celebrate the Christian holidays with my wife and her family, but I am there mostly for the peace and brotherhood and goodwill toward men and family companionship and food, rather than some specific religious belief. At one point Eagledad summarized one of my earlier statements as saying that God created the universe and then packed it in, or something like that. I didn't quite say that. I honestly don't know what God did after he (using the conventional pronoun) created the universe. And at the risk of offending people, I don't think it really matters, or at least, it doesn't matter to me. But the point is, I have no reason to believe that God is active in this world, or that he gave mankind any moral commands, or that (again I don't want to offend anyone) God had anything to do with the Bible or any other holy books. And to respond to another of Eagledad's comments, I don't think that means God is "incapable" of having a relationship with mankind. I just don't happen to believe that such a relationship exists. Whether it would be within God's "ability" is really beside the point. (For me; I guess I keep feeling compelled to say, for me, although I notice that when many other people talk about their beliefs, they don't see the need to qualify them, maybe because they think their beliefs are the Absolute Truth.) Somewhere along the line, Eagledad took something else I wrote and, I think, completely misinterpreted it and said I was showing "ignorance and pride" and some other things. I haven't gone back and seen exactly what he said, or what I had said first. But I think he was responding to something I didn't really say. That's about it for now.

Funny, TwoCub. And also funny Pack, though just to be serious for a moment, unless his birth certificate showed that he wasn't born AT ALL, I think he would still be eligible to be Pope.

Although it's probably a dangerous thing to presume to speak for Merlyn, I think what he is saying is that believing in God (or a higher power, Supreme Being or whatever) does not necessarily mean that you believe that God prescribed moral laws for mankind. I suppose I fall into that category. I believe that "creation" was set in motion by a higher power (which for the sake of convention, I call God), but I believe very little else of what organized religions believe. Among the things I don't believe is that God gave us moral commands; I believe that for better or for worse, we came up with those ourselves. So if the BSA policy on religion was founded on the basis that you say it is, I don't belong in the BSA either. But it isn't, and I do.

Woapalanne, the Scout Oath does not say anything about sexual orientation.

I think this is about morality, more than money. I believe it is wrong to force units to exclude people based solely on sexual orientation. If ending that policy also has a financial benefit, all the better. Now that National has invited Scouters to tell them how we feel on this subject - they have done that, right? - rather than implying that those with the wrong opinions will find their membership terminated, I will indeed be writing to National with my opinion - and it won't be about a boycott.

Cambridgeskip, I think your experiences would be helpful to us. Added: plus the last time I checked, private messaging was not working. But I think your experiences would be of general interest anyway.

I would tell Mom what the "Eagle secretary" told you, and if she doesn't like it, give her the guy's contact information and tell her the troop has nothing more to do with it. As for whether the council can really backdate years worth of registrations and seven ranks (including Scout and Eagle), or whether National will kick it back, that is council's issue, not yours. But I would thank the council guy for his willingness to go beyond the call of duty to help this young man, whose situation seems to be the fault of his mother and not his own. It's unfortunate that Mom will not do her part for her own son.

I think DeanRx says it very well, except that in his last sentence, I wouldn't say I am "disgusted", just very disappointed. I have gotten used to the BSA not handling difficult issues very well, but it did seem like they were moving in the right direction on this one. I still don't get why they would put that statement up on Scouting.org, linked from the front page, if this were not a done deal. As for petitions and surveys, I have not participated in any on this subject. I guess I should decide which is the right way to make my opinions known to National, and do it. It also baffles me that anyone could read the opinions expressed in this forum, many of which favor the change, and still conclude that the impetus for this change is some "outside" group or groups. The people in this forum who favor the change are all active Scouters, with one exception that I am aware of. Additionally, as far as I know, not that it should matter but for whatever anyone thinks it's worth, none of the people actively posting in this forum are gay, or at least nobody has identified themselves as such. (There was one who did, but he has not posted for a number of years.) We're just Scouters who disagree with National's policy and think local option would be in the best interest of the organization, and ultimately in the best interests of the Scouts.

Yes Kahuna, and in my troop's case I am expecting some pointed questions from our CO, in particular.

The BSA has delayed a decision on the membership policy issue until May: http://news.yahoo.com/boy-scouts-delay-decision-admitting-gays-153238089.html I fear they have created a huge mess by creating the expectation that a decision was going to be made this week, and then delaying it -- unless all sides wait with calm and patience for the decision, but that's not what I predict.

Or maybe not. It may just be that in the health care case, he interprets the taxation clause of the constitution differently than the other justices. (At least, I think that was the issue. It was so convoluted and unrelated to any of my day-to-day practice of law, it's fading from my memory already.) I don't think it means he suddenly converted to liberalism. (This was supposed to be a reply to Nike's comment about CJ Roberts. It doesn't seem to have ended up there.)

Personally, I think this proposed change (which may or may not happen) has to do with a lot of different things, and none of us can really know how much influence of each one is actually contributing to the result. These things include, in no particular order: Opinions expressed by various councils in favor of a change; opinions expressed by BSA members and CO's in favor of a change; loss and potential additional loss of corporate funding; loss and potential additional loss of United Way and other charitable funding; whatever polls and surveys (scientific or otherwise) have been taken; declining membership and potential additional declining membership; the fundamental right-ness of making a change (sorry, I had to throw that one in there, since it's reason #1 for me); lobbying by various outside groups (though personally I don't think that is much of a factor, except as it leads to the next one); bad publicity; and probably a few others. And of course, many of these have cause-and-effect relationships with each other, in various directions. For example, bad publicity can lead to a decline in donations even beyond the opposition to the policy itself. Note that I did not list the opinions of the president-elect of the BSA, because I think that if that is a factor at all, it would be maybe a half-percent of the entire picture. If the BSA was otherwise dead-set on keeping the policy (and they may still be), and the "heir" to the presidency was speaking out against it, I think that they would just find a new president. (Which of course = more bad publicity.) As for litigation, I guess I could see that as a very minor factor as well. If they have heard of groups planning to sue, they might have decided to change the policy before the suits are even filed so that it didn't look like the lawsuits led to the change. But as I said, I think the other factors are much more important. Of course, we still don't know whether the policy is actually changing.

Packsaddle, in order for the issue to go back to the Supreme Court, someone would have to start a new lawsuit in a court where the state anti-discrimination statute (1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and (2) is interpreted so as to define an organization such as the BSA as a "public accommodation." I believe there is only one state where #2 has already happened, and that is New Jersey, in the Dale case. I believe several other states (including California) had previously decided that the BSA is NOT a "public accommodation." In order to have standing to sue, the "someone" would probably have to be a person who has been specifically denied membership in the BSA because they are openly gay. (It is possible that someone who refrained from applying for membership because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dale case MIGHT have standing, but that would have to be decided by the courts.) Then, presuming the case were filed in a New Jersey state court, it would have to work its way up through all three levels of the state court system, and presumably the plaintiff would lose at every level, because the state courts would have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal First Amendment issue of "expressive association." Then the plaintiff would have to apply for review by the Supreme Court (technically called a writ of certiorari), which could decide to hear the case, or turn it down. And then, given the current membership of the Supreme Court, it would still be a 5-4 vote, and unless CJ Roberts voted with the "liberals", the decision would probably still be the same. That is a very long and uncertain road (and very expensive, probably for some organization) to an end that might very well being no different than the last time. Whoever said that it is "nearly certain" that the BSA would lose its right to uphold the current policy, I don't really know what they are talking about.

“If a similar challenge were heard in today’s Court, it is nearly certain that the BSA would lose its right to uphold the current policy, and the decision would dictate a change at every level of the organization.†Just as a matter of counting votes, I am not sure how the writer of the memo reached this conclusion. In the Dale decision, the five-person majority was made up of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justics O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. The four-person minority was made up of Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Now Rehnquist, O'Connor, Stevens and Souter are gone, replaced by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan. My bet would be that Roberts and Alito would vote with the original majority and Sotomayor and Kagan would vote with the original minority, resulting in the same 5-4 vote. (This of course assumes that nobody changes sides, which does happen occasionally, but there is no particular reason to assume that anyone would in this case.) Unless the memo-writer believes that Roberts would vote to overturn Dale. I know that the Chief Justice has surprised some people with some of his votes, particularly on the health care law, but I think he is still fundamentally a conservative and usually votes with the conservatives, though not always. So I agree, this would be a curious motivation for changing the policy.

Update: Yesterday I was able to get into "Issues and Politics" but this morning I could not. I have switched from Firefox to Internet Explorer for this forum and it seems to work much better. I can get into "Issues and Politics" and, for the first time, I can get into "Scouter Announcements", and not just the topic that has the last post. So I guess IE is the way to go for this forum.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't President Obama make a statement sometime before the last election favoring a change in the BSA policy? And now that the change seems to be imminent, he is encouraging it. That seems pretty consistent. Or am I mssing something?