NJCubScouter

On this I agree with Bob. (Is the Earth still orbiting the Sun? Oops, since Genesis says the Sun is merely a light God put in the sky, that might offend someone.) stlscouter, on the other hand: I think you need to study the difference between individuals and government as the First Amendment applies to each. When "we" are a bunch of individuals, we can do certain things, but when "we" act through a government entity, we cannot do many of those things. That is not a result of any so-called "collusion" between the ACLU and judges, it is the basis of the First Amendment and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. In other words, when "we" are the government, yes our "freedom of speech" IS limited, because the government does not have the rights listed in the First Amendment, only the "people" do.

Bob says: If the BSA wanted to promote a specific political party then they have every right to... Well, no. The BSA could not do this and still remain what it is, which among other things is a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, and a corporation with a Congressional charter to carry out a specific purpose. I am sure its bylaws or articles of incorporation prohibit partisan political activity, because such a prohibition is required in order to have 501c3 status. At the same time, if the BSA strayed so far from the purposes specified in the Act of Congress by which it is chartered, I believe it would lose that charter. In other words, I was a bit too quick earlier to agree that the BSA "can" do just about anything it wants, and still remain what it is. It cannot. It is NOT simply a "private organization." It has obligations and restrictions as both a tax-exempt organization and as an organization that is Congressionally chartered for a particular purpose, that govern what it does and doesn't do. The BSA also is an organization that has adopted certain written founding principles that have not materially changed. The leadership has the ability to change the written expression of those principles, but it will not do so in any material way because then it would become obvious that the Boy Scouts is no longer the Boy Scouts. The more I think about it, the more I must reject this foul and offensive notion that the BSA leadership can do "anything" they want and still call it the Boy Scouts. Morally they cannot, and because of the Congressional charter and restrictions on tax-exempt organizations, legally they cannot either. Bob, I can only conclude that you are the one who does not understand what Scouting is all about. Knowledge of the program means little if it is couched in a misunderstanding of the basic reason for the organization. And Bob, unless you have posted again while I was writing this, you still have not pointed out where in the program creationism is promoted.

Bob says: Because the question posed suggested that the BSA did not currently promote creationism, when in fact it does...and at its core asks the question of should the BSA promote any specific opinion on matters, and it absolutely has that authority and the responsibility to do so. Maybe both Bob and Merlyn need to read Mr. Johnson's article again. It never even mentions the word "creationism" or any of its synonyms. What it really says is that the BSA should oppose the teaching of evolution, because (the writer says) believing in evolution (or as I would put it, understanding evolution) leads people to disbelieve in God. I do not think the BSA has any intention of campaigning against the teaching of evolution, which is what Mr. Johnson advocates. But I have to know, Bob: Where exactly do you claim the BSA supports creationism in its program? Creationism being the belief that the world and mankind etc etc were formed exactly as described in the allegory contained the book of Genesis? I understand that the BSA encourages Scouts to believe in their religion as it has been taught to them (which may include creationism), but that does not make creationism part of the program. Where is it in the program, Bob? Do not confuse membership with ownership. And do not confuse discussion about the right course for an organization to take, with confusing membership with ownership. (But, by the way, nobody "owns" the BSA, that concept is inconsistent with a non-profit corporation. Those who currently control the BSA are selected to do so under its Bylaws, and that gives them the ability to set policy and program, but they do not "own" the BSA any more than I do.)

OGE says: And yet if you are 18 -21 and in Venturing or the OA, you are considered a youth. Right, which as I have discussed before, means that from a Youth Protection perspective, the rules can have some pretty odd results. If "A" is 17, "B" is 19 and "C" is 22, and each is registered in both a Troop and a Crew, when the Troop has a camping trip B can tent with C but not with A, but the next weekend when the Crew camps, B can tent with A but not with C. They are the same people, but what is appropriate or inappropriate depends on what type of unit got the tour permit. It doesn't make much sense. I don't know what can be done about this, because there is a pretty big gap between 18 and 21 and it really wouldn't be feasible for Boy Scouts and Venturing to have the same definitions of "youth", or there would be too big an impact on one or both of the programs. However, as I have said in the past, I do think the BSA should consider a change in status for 18 year olds, where they could stay in the troop as "youth" for some period of time (including beyond the next recharter date, and possibly more than a year) without having to become an ASM, but without being able to advance in rank. I think this would work especially well for young men who go to college or into the military, they can stay in the troop through the summer or whenever, and then they (and the troop) can decide whether an adult role is appropriate for them at a later time. I remember when I myself became an 18-year-old ASM, I recall feeling pretty odd about it. I am still a high school senior, these are still the same guys I was a Scout with, what has changed? It helped (or maybe it didn't) that my father was the SM, he probably gave me the same things to do as ASM as when I was JASM, except I remember he sent me to a few Roundtables and one awards dinner when he could not go. But that's not a usual thing, it happened because he was the SM and trusted his son to be his personal emissary. It doesn't necessarily mean I was ready to perform the "core duties" of an ASM.

Why is that Bob tries to turn every discussion of what the BSA should do into a discussion of what the BSA can do? You don't have to answer, Bob, it's a rhetorical question. The reason you do so is that you are trying to shut down the discussions, because once the discussion turns to what the BSA can do, there is nothing more to discuss, because the BSA can do almost anything. But the issue of what the BSA should do, vs. what it can do, really are two different issues. As members of the BSA or others interested in what the BSA does, there is nothing wrong with discussing what the BSA should do, from a moral point of view, or based on what is best for the organization, or for any other reason. The fact that some group of people has the ultimate right to make the discussion doesn't mean we shouldn't have an opinion on it, or express that opinion. This thread is a pretty good example. It started because Merlyn decided to post an article written by a guy who, at least purportedly, is offering the BSA some advice on how to best fulfill part of its mission. The mission in question is the BSA's goal to have its youth members recognize and perform their duty to God. Now, this writer believes that there is a problem, because many Scouts believe in evolution, and this may lead them not to believe in God, thus preventing the BSA from fulfulling that part of its mission. Therefore, he says, the BSA should (there's that word) promote a belief that God created everything exactly in the way the Bible says, so that Scouts will believe in God. Of course, I believe the whole premise is preposterous, because a recognition of the fact of evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God or any other higher power -- it is only inconsistent with the religious beliefs of this particular writer, as well as a few members of this forum. What this writer (and a few members of this forum) are really doing is to equate a belief in God only with what they believe about the nature and details of Creation. But it is yet another illustation (the primary one being the "gay issue") of how what the BSA should do and what it can do are two different issues, despite the efforts of one forum member to stifle discussion by combining the two. Oh, and by the way, to whoever called Merlyn a "troll" for posting this... it's not like he wrote the article in the first place. Someone else wrote the article, and get this, it is actually about the Boy Scouts, unlike some of the recent threads in Issues and Politics which are about peoples' individual religious beliefs and have nothing to do with Scouting. So Merlyn found and it posted it. How is that trolling? I also think he (or maybe it was someone else) draws a reasonable question from it, which is, if the BSA is willing to violate its Declaration of Religious Principles to exclude gays, what else might it do? I do not think the BSA will start campaigning against the teaching of evolution as the article-writer suggests, but it's not quite as far-fetched as some people say, given what the BSA has already done. Oh, and just as a reminder, when I say the BSA, I do not mean the actual people who make Scouting work every day in units and districts and councils, I mean those who currently, but not forever, control the decision-making apparatus of the BSA.

stlscouter says: My interest stems from the fact that I know of several ubder 21 scouts who have returned from Iraq and I believe they are good role models and should be given the opportunity to give back to scouting. Ok, but that being the case, I cannot think of a better role for these young adults than being an Assistant Scoutmaster. That position gives them a much better opportunity to be a "role model" than would a committee position or even a MB counselor position. (And of course an ASM can also be an MB counselor.) I say that because an ASM is generally working with the boys, while a committee member, as such, is generally working with other adults except for the occasional BOR. (I say "as such" because the role of a committee member can sometimes "expand," for example I am a committee member who attends most camping trips and semi-regularly helps with advancement at troop meetings, but that's not technically part of my "job," I do it because it helps the troop.) Now, as I have said in the past, I have had an issue with our troop (and I think, many others) automatically making a "boy" an ASM on his 18th birthday so that he will not have to "leave" the troop, and expecting him to suddenly be a good adult leader. It rarely works that way. Usually they either continue to act like "one of the boys" which is no good for anybody; or are there only because their father is also a leader and father and son are still in the "habit" of attending meetings together; or they come to a few troop meetings and 1 or 2 camping trips and then fade away, or they go away to college and that's it. I find that the ones who do contribute something are those who have enough interest to come back during breaks from college, after they have had the chance to "mature" a little bit more, away from the troop. But once again, your returnees from military service would seem to fit the bill because they have had the chance to "grow up" a bit (indeed, they have had no choice but to do so) and, as you say, would be good role models (as long as they remember that Scouting is not the military.)

Rooster says: Homosexuals are trying to legitimize their sin. They are not trying to changetheyre embracing their sin. I think that may be because they don't consider it a sin. Many heterosexuals (including me)don't consider homosexuality to be a sin either. As for trying to "legitimize" it, I think what they are trying to do is not be discriminated against. They have had some success at that, and I hope they have more.

Rooster says: ...assuming that homosexual behavior is a protected right. However, many Americans if not most believe that such a protection has been the invention of liberal judges, who like to create law vice interpret it. People can believe what they want, but facts are facts. A number of states (including mine) have adopted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public employment, private employment (with some limitations), public accommodations, housing, etc. Those statutes were adopted by the legislatures of those states, not by judges. Individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Well, I would dispute that, there are constant debates, discussions, court cases, books taking various points of view, etc., regarding the scope and meaning of some of the rights protected by the Constitution, so it really isn't all that clear. Probably the best example in this context is the section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from denying equal protection of the laws to their citizens. It does NOT say what characteristics are to be taken into account. The Congress in the 1870's (when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted) probably did not have equal rights for women in mind, and yet since that time the courts have stated that both the state and federal government are limited in their ability to take gender into account. (Only limited, not prohibited -- which is why the statute limiting the military draft to males is constitutional, but a statute that said that only men can be employed as accountants in federal departments (to take a ridiculous example) would be unconstitutional. With regard to homosexuality, the law of "equal protection" is in flux at the moment. The federal and state governments are NOT prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, for example, under the federal constitution. (As noted above, state law may be a different story, because a state can recognized more rights than federal law does, though of course such laws only apply to state and local governments in that state.) To date, the courts have upheld the military laws that criminalize homosexual behavior, though the recent Texas "sodomy case" suggests that at some point, this may change.

Rooster and Ed, all of your posts about homosexuality only serve to confirm that the BSA policy is based on religion, and specifically on one religious viewpoint which is not shared by all BSA members. You want to believe in a particular book as being the word of God? You want to believe in a particular translation that condemns people for following their orientation, even when they aren't hurting anybody else? Go ahead, it's your choice (there's that word again.) But when the BSA national leadership makes your book and your interpretation the basis of a policy about which there is substantial disagreement, they have violated a basic principle of the organization, non-sectarianism. And Rooster, I again notice that you call the BSA a "they," while I call it "we." It is the current, temporary, principle-ignoring national leadership of the BSA that is a "they." But the BSA itself is us. Well, maybe not you, the last time you said anything about it you weren't really involved with the BSA anymore.

It could be a couple things: I think both political parties believe that our immigration policies are too restrictive, but especially in the post-9/11 environment, they don't want to be seen actually changing the immigration laws to allow more immigration. So they take these half-measures like making people who are here illegally seem more like like immigrants. On the other hand, both political parties also want to pander to ethnic groups (within the legal, citizen, voting population) who would like to see more of their ethnic brethren allowed in, or not chased out, and eventually "legalized." As for Kahuna's comments about terrorists, history has shown that anyone can set off a bomb or use an airplane as a weapon, and kill a lot of people. It can be an illegal alien like some of the 9-11 killers; it can be someone who has entered the country legally like others of the 9-11 killers; or it can be someone who is a native-born citizen like Timothy McVeigh. If I get blown up by a terrorist, his immigration status is not going to be all that relevant to me at the time.

Trevorum, as we used to say back in the 70s, right on, man. LyndaJ, you did not put your foot in it, not as far as I am concerned, anyway. I have made the same point a number of times. Gay people are part of God's creation, and they should be evaluated for membership in a BSA unit the same as if they were straight. Meaning, if they have a history of hurting other people or disobeying the law, or will not subscribe to the principles of Scouting, or for some other reason are of bad character, they don't become a Scout leader; and even those who are of good character must be selected by a CO, who may exclude them for any reason (well, they can't "openly" exclude someone on the basis of race, but other than that...) Straight and gay people can pass that test, and straight and gay people can fail that test, and if 60 or 70 or 80 percent of CO's would exclude someone on the basis that they are gay, well, it's not 100 percent, and I think it would start to move the BSA past this issue. Now, Lynda, I have on occasion taken the idea that "God made gay people too" one step further. I have suggested, only half-jokingly, that perhaps God made a small percentage of humanity gay as a test for the rest of us, to see how we would treat a person who was "so different" but not hurting anybody. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I don't believe that God judges us on an individual basis anyway, so the "test" theory doesn't even fly with me. And of course I can't "prove" it. But those who think they are "serving God" by promoting the exclusion of gay people, calling them perverts or whatever, may want to think about what God might really have in mind.

I have to strongly agree with Bob here. If you know that shooting activities are going on without proper training, without certified supervision and not "in a safe place," you must report it immediately so it can be stopped. You are talking about deadly weapons that can (and do) kill people due to a split-second of carelessness. Who cares who gets a merit badge? Let's make sure we minimize the chances of someone getting shot to death, first.

Gern says: You are absolutely correct that if the hard-wired arguement was proven, BSA would have a very difficult time justifying the discrimination. Perhaps someday, we will be able to scientically demonstrate this, however, I would bet that some would still reject the evidence. Some would still reject the evidence? I have no doubt about that. It probably would be many of the same people who reject the evidence for evolution because it does not conform to their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Some people are not interested in science if it does not agree with their religious beliefs.

Yay Trevorum. I thought of that analogy but wanted to see if someone else would make it. Apparently, to some people a private organization or a private business only has the right to make its own policies if those policies promote the idea of excluding gay people. The hypocrisy is so obvious.

The statute that gives the BSA its "Federal Charter" does not, to my recollection, include "Inc." in the name. I looked at the official BSA website and at least on the front page, the name is "Boy Scouts of America" with no "Inc." I believe however that it was also incorporated as a corporation of the State of New York, and whether the statutes of that state require the name to contain some "incoporation word" (as the statutes of my state does) I do not know. I also do not know whether the BSA is still a New York corporation. I did do a "Google" search and found several references to "Boy Scouts of America, Inc.," though none of them seemed to be "official." I also know that some people in this forum (which I think includes me, once) refer to "BSA, Inc." (sometimes in quotes, sometimes not) to distinguish National (the "Inc.") from the actual day-to-day operation of Scouting in local units. I don't think there's anything wrong with it since I think most readers understand what it means.

I think it was the poster of Raquel Welch from "1 million years B.C." that did it for me. (By the way, I read somewhere that she will turn 65 this year... difficult to believe.) Seriously though, I don't think I ever made a choice as to my orientation. It just was what it was. It is biological -- but that doesn't mean the biology works the same for everybody. For a small percentage it works differently, apparently. I think our biology (whether you want to attribute it to God, Mother Nature, Charles Darwin, or whatever) makes sure that we have enough people ready, willing and able to reproduce to keep the species thriving. But apparently that does not require 100 percent of people to be attracted to the opposite gender, only 95 percent or so.

Attack? I made a joke out of the fact that you used the wrong word? That's an attack? I thought it was "liberals" who took offense too easily.

Actually Rooster, I think you find it incredible, because you are incredulous. I personally am incredulous about two things, First, that people would leap to the conclusions that fgoodwin and Rooster apparently leaped to, without at least asking Terry to first explain how the "store" works and how the products are selected. Especially when, having skimmed through some of the pages myself, the vast majority of the products are things that nobody could object to. Not that I have any idea why they are wasting bandwith offering the 1998 Requirements Book or the 1998 Wolf Cub Scout Book (equally out of date), though the price for each seems to be $0.01 (one cent), which is about what they are worth. (Actually if you use them as firewood they may be worth 2 cents.) Second, I am incredulous that they think anyone would spend $5.95 for a single magazine article. I wouldn't spend that much for a whole magazine.

Interest etymological history there Semper, but I think the current generally accepted meaning of "curmudgeon" is something like "person who is perpetually grumpy." I do think that it usually implies one who is "older," not necessarily "old" but one who has been around for awhile, has "seen a lot," has decided he knows more than most other people especially "these kids today," has become jaded, somewhat cynical, somewhat, well, grumpy. In that light, it is difficult to argue with Nlscouter's use of the word. (And if you think I am implying that maybe there is at least a slight tinge of "curmudgeon-ness" in many of us, not including me of course, you may be right. Oh, I forgot, a curmudgeon may get a little sarcastic at times as well.)

Torveaux says: The real difference among Supreme Court Justices is between those who see their roles as upholding the Constitution, regardless of their personal opinions... Oh, really? You think there are justices who do not let their personal opinions influence their interpretation of the Constitution? Which ones are they?

In this and other forums I have come to realize that for every quote you can find on the Internet in which Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison etc. etc. say something that seems to go one way on religion and government, you can find another quote by someone in the same group (and often by the same person) that goes the other way. In my reading it seems that Washington and Jefferson in particular are two people whose public pronouncements on the subject of religion and government give a very different impression than some of the statements found in their private letters and papers. Here is an article that brings together a number of sources on the subject, and since it is entitled "Our Godless Constitution" you can tell which perspective it takes: http://tinyurl.com/cn2ye This is the perspective that I believe is best supported by history. The article discusses the sort of "double personality" that Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and others had to have in order to remain successful in public affairs. And even in public, to the extent that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution did speak of God's role in the new nation, it was usually in the sort of vague, generic, mysterious "deist" sense of the "Creator" or "Author" or "Divine Providence" as opposed to any particular organized religion's name for God or conception of God. As gavvin points out in one his quotations, they could have enshrined a particular name for God in various documents but chose not to do so. Instead, as the article that I linked-to points out, one of our earliest treaties states "the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." As an aside, SR540Beaver, another great post. It is a perspective not often seen in this forum.

Great post SR540, I agree completely. By the way, since you mention Judge Moore, although I don't think that case ever got to the U.S. Supreme Court (at least not on the merits), I do think it is pretty clear that his Ten C. display would have been placed in the "Kentucky" category (unconstitutional) rather than the "Texas" category (constitutional.) A large free-standing display unaccompanied by other monuments of equal prominence would be seen as a "promotion" of religion, probably even more clearly than the displays in the courthouses in Kentucky. (And that doesn't even take into account the statements of Judge Moore at the time, which suggested that promoting religion was exactly the point of the monument.)

I realized there may be some of you out there who are not necessarily legal and/or politics buffs and could therefore use a "scorecard" of justices appointed by each president, so as a public service, here is one: Gerald Ford ®: John Paul Stevens (1) Ronald Reagan ®: Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist (4) (Rehnquist was appointed an Associate Justice by Nixon in the early 70's and as Chief Justice by Reagan.) George H.W. Bush ®: David Souter, Clarence Thomas (2) Bill Clinton (D): Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg

For those of you making a liberal/conservative distinction on this issue, first of all, those labels are very imprecise and could be a matter for debate. But the main thing I want to say is that the 5-member majority included Justice Kennedy, who (if we insist on labeling people) is a conservative and a Reagan appointee. So this expansion of government power would not have been approved without a coalition of "liberal", "moderate" and "conservative" justices agreeing to it. (In the "moderate" group I include Justice Breyer, who really is not a liberal, and possibly also Justice Souter, though I suppose it would be fair to call him a "liberal.") I also get some amusement from the constant hand-wringing over so-called "liberal" decisions being made by a Court in which 6 of the 9 members were appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush (the father.) In fact 7 of 9 (calm down Star Trek fans) were appointed by Republicans but I suppose Gerald Ford doesn't count, in today's world he would have no chance at being a Republican nominee for national office.

Bob says: You think that the BSA is hiding something because you doubt that they keep accident data based om religious practices. Um, no, Bob. As I have had to explain to you a number of times before, I think what I said, not what you change my words to. Your technique of changing someone's words to mean something that you can then attack is one I learned to spot about 30 years ago on the high school debating team, so you have little chance of getting it past me now. I wonder if the BSA will have any of their stealth helicopters on static display at Jamboree? Well, you know the trick with conspiracy theories: If you deny the theory, you must be part of the conspiracy. (If I was responding to almost anybody else, there would be a smiley face here.)