NJCubScouter

The BSA document reprinted in the post Merlyn cited to is the one I was talking about. It says there were 10,113 public schools that were CO's for Scout units in 1998. Parent-teacher groups are listed separately. I searched the Internet for an updated edition of the same document. All I came up with were other copies (differently formatted but the same numbers) of the one from 1998. http://www.three-peaks.net/scout03.htm It is possible that the BSA has stopped handing out this breakdown. However, if you go on the BSA web site you will find a "Fact Sheet" that includes a list of organizations and types of organizations to which units are chartered, and they specifically list "Public Schools." They do not list PTOs/PTAs separately, so it is possible they are lumped together. However, it seems unlikely that there were more than 10,000 public schools as CO's in 1998 and none today. The BSA itself holds itself out as issuing charters to "public schools." So why try to deny it? If they do, they do, and if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Acco says: Now one could become bull headed about the issue. But not in this forum. Nobody would ever be bull-headed about anything here. Nosiree. (At first I typed "Nosireebob", but I realized that might be misconstrued.) Anyway, in my son's troop I know a boy must have attended the one-week JLT to be a candidate in the election for SPL. I am not sure if that is a requirement for ASPL or not (it just happens in the relatively short time I've been there that the losing candidate for SPL becomes ASPL.) I have a feeling there is also a First Class requirement for SPL but again I am not positive because the SPLs and candidates I have seen in that troop have been Star or above. I do not think there are any requirements for any other positions, and therefore JLT is not an "implied" rank requirement because of course there are many other POR's besides SPL (and ASPL.)

I don't think that what the GSUSA does is particularly relevant to what the BSA does. They are 2 different organizations, they have their rules, "we" have "ours." (I don't mean that the way it sounds, I have the highest respect for the Girl Scouts, in fact a majority of the people residing in my household were Girl Scouts, and one was a Girl Scout co-leader when the other 2 were Girl Scouts. And I did my share of driving-around and stuff also.) But for those who do think that what the GSUSA does is relevant to what the BSA does, ok, the GSUSA does not kick out gay leaders nor, as I understand it, do they interpret their own "oath"s reference to God so as to necessarily exclude atheists. FOG and anyone else, you signing up for all that?

I believe that there are, or have been in the past, some public schools that have been CO's themselves, not through a PTO or similar organization. My evidence is not great, but it is what it is: When I was a Cub Scout and in my first Boy Scout troop (60s and very early 70s), it was my understanding that the school where we met was the "sponsoring" organization. It was probably called something other than a CO then. I know that what is now the CR was called the Institutional Representative, and the main reason I know that is that my father (sometimes as committee member and sometimes as unit leader) would occasionally give me some papers (probably relating to the charter) to take into school to give to one of the administrators (the "IR") and sometimes bring something back. I'm pretty sure this guy was not a "PTO guy," but was representing the school itself. Why I remember this 35 or so years later, I'm not sure. OK, that's not so good. I also remember, a couple of years ago, seeing a breakdown of BSA chartering organizations, with percentages of units (and members) chartered by each type of CO. I think it broke out the major chartering churches (LDS, Methodist, I forget who is third) and then more by types of organization, like one category covering Lions, Elks and similar groups. I remember noticing that Public Schools and PTO's were listed separately. The percentage of Public Schools was very small, but it was on the list.

Adrian, "chartering" a group as a BSA-chartered organization does, and "hosting" a group by providing meeting and activity space, are two different things. I believe that the law now is that public schools must provide use of facilities to religious organizations on the same basis as other organizations. For example if there is a chess club and a debating club and they get to use a classroom after school, the school can't deny use of a classroom to the Christian club or the Buddhist club or a generic Bible Study Group. (I'm not sure that you're correct that such religious groups in a school can exclude non-adherents of their religion; I have a feeling that they cannot be excluded as long as they are not there to disrupt the stated purpose of the meeting or study, but I don't have any actual evidence handy.) Chartering a BSA unit, which makes the organization the "owner" of the unit, is different. I think it would be correct to say that if the unit is practicing any "discrimination," the CO is practicing the same thing -- even if the "discrimination" is required by BSA national policy. I think a distinction is being lost here though -- it seems Merlyn is talking about a school itself being the CO while others (Bob I think) have mentioned a school's PTO as the CO. As I have said before, I believe Merlyn is correct that a public school itself (or a military base or other arm of the "government") should not be a CO of a BSA unit because it would be engaging in discrimination on the basis of religion (by excluding atheists) and in some states it would be engaging in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Allowing use of facilities to a BSA unit on the same basis as other groups, without being a CO, is a different story. Having the PTO be the CO is also a different story, though it's a bit complicated. PTO's are technically "private" organizations but it is a fuzzy line, as they get some privileges that other groups do not. In my school district the PTO's and other "parent groups" (band parents, special ed parents, education foundation and others) are designated "friends of the school district" and are given free use of facilities that say, an outside religious group would not get. (The religious group could rent the space for a fee.) A few of the PTO's are CO's of packs and troops. I don't know that the issue has ever come up within the PTO's. The issue of the use of facilities by BSA units HAS come up in my school district -- specifically at a school board committee meeting at which I was present. I have refrained from talking about this because the more I say about it, the more I could potentially be identified. It also was not a public meeting. Suffice it to say that I did not raise the issue, and was not happy to be the only person room who had any inkling about what the BSA's legal position is on the use of public facilities by BSA units. I felt compelled to describe that legal position, after several disclaimers, including that if the person wanted to pursue it, they should check with the board attorney and not rely on what I was saying. Also suffice it to say that, as far as I know, the issue ended there.

Scoutmom, if I were you I would not allow myself to be troubled by anyone's comments on this subject, particularly not those of someone whose self-assigned role in this forum seems to be to get as many people as riled up as possible... followed by someone else who, though too young to have experienced the joys and challenges of parenting a pre/teenager, feels free to comment on how you should do so. Basically I agree with BobWhite and OGE. The BSA says you can be a leader, and you want to be a leader, so the naysaying is irrelevant. The attitude of the other leaders in your troop is relevant, but you say you can "deal," so you do the best you can. And how you raise your son, including when you choose to be on camping trips with him, is nobody's business but yours.

If you don't have anything nice to say about someone... come over here and sit by me. (Attributed to Dorothy Parker)

Adrian says: To those who believe that atheists and homosexuals should be accepted members of the BSA: I'll answer on the "homosexuals" (gay) part. The "atheist" part I can't answer for, as I have explained several times why I think that the BSA policy and practice on committed, outspoken atheists is reasonable in light of the Scout Oath and Law and Declaration of Religious Principles. That practice, as I understand it, gives members who have expressed an affirmative belief in the non-existence of God, or who refuse to subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law, an opportunity to recognize some higher power even if it is not associated with an established religion. (On the other hand I do reluctantly agree with Merlyn that if it excludes atheists, under the Establishment Clause the BSA can probably not continue to get special favors or charters from government entities.) By the same token, I have explained many times why I don't believe that the uniform nationwide automatic exclusion of all avowed gays is reasonable or right. What other "groups" do you feel should be granted membership? First of all, I don't look at it in terms of "groups." I look at it in terms of individuals. If we are talking about leaders, the question is whether there is something inherent in the individual or his/her past conduct that makes it impossible for him/her to be a good role model for the principles of Scouting. The BSA looks at avowed gays as a "group" and says that all members of that group cannot be good role models for the principles of Scouting. I don't see any basis for that. Second of all, I am not aware of any other "categories of individuals" (or "groups" if you will) who are excluded as a "group" and who I believe should be included. In fact, other than gays and atheists, I am aware of only one "group" that is subject to a blanket nationwide exclusion: Those who have been convicted of serious crimes or who otherwise have demonstrated that they, as individuals, are dangerous or potentially dangerous. (That would obviously include those convicted of sexual abuse and I suspect, those who have pending charges as well. How the BSA handles those who have been acquitted but for whom "reasonable suspicion" exists, I am not sure. But even if they are excluded, it is based on a determination of their past conduct (or probable past conduct) as an individual.) Are there any other actions or dispositions toward actions currently deemed unacceptable by the BSA that you consider acceptable? Not that I'm aware of (see above.) Where do you draw the lines and how do you draw them? I think a more relevant question is how and where the BSA draws the line. The BSA excludes only a very small proportion of people, and therefore when it does, I think the BSA has to explain itself to its members, rather than that burden falling on those who wish to "accept" people. And obviously I don't think it has drawn the line in the right way or in the right place on the issue of gays. But nevertheless, I will answer how and where I draw the line, the best I can. My focus would not be on who I accept, but on who I would reject, since I would accept anyone except where there is a reason not to. (And despite what I know some people will say, I believe the BSA follows the same approach.) My line-drawing criteria would probably require only two questions: One, does the person represent a significant threat of harm to the youth (or others) in the program, and two, is the person's avowed or known conduct seriously inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Law and related values. Criminals (including sexual abusers) fall outside the line on question one (and two), atheists fall outside the line on question two (but not one in my opinion) for the reasons I have alluded to. Gays, as a "group", fall inside the line for the reasons I have been discussing in this forum for very close to 2 years, and I don't really need to repeat myself. But to fit them into my criteria, they represent neither an inherent risk of harm, nor are they (contrary to what the BSA's current leadership says) poor role models for the values of Scouting. Or to put the second part another way, heterosexuality is not a "value" of Scouting. Both straight and gay people can be moral or immoral. All this is not to say that a unit (or in some cases I suppose, a council) may not exclude youths or leaders based on other criteria. Reasons for excluding a youth would have to at least come close to one of my two criteria, such as a boy disrupting every meeting and no corrective action will work, warnings and parental intervention go unheeded, finally the boy may have to be separated from the troop. The "local option" is even clearer for leaders, whom the CO may appoint or remove for any reason it chooses. If Billy's father wants to be Scoutmaster and is otherwise qualified, but he weighs 500 pounds (not due to a medical condition but due to lack of self-discipline) the CO may very well decide that he should not be the one at the front of the room. This is the kind of thing we have discussed in this forum a number of times; obesity, drivings-while-intoxicated in the past, some rumors of illicit (but of course straight!) conduct... one unit may decide the person should be a leader, another unit may not. The relation to the "gay issue" is that under the current rule, the unit does not get to make this decision. That is what I would change.

Thanks Terry! To use the format tool or spell checker just click on the "FORMAT THIS POST" link to the left of the Message window when creating new posts. Is that how the quotation is supposed to look?

My understanding of what "creationism" is, is the belief that the "creation account" in the Book of Genesis is literally true. This belief (again, as I understand it) not only includes the creation of mankind directly by God with any "intermediate" species, but also the belief that the Earth is only several thousand years old (because the "six days" are multipled by a passage somewhere that says "a day is like a thousand years.") To me, as far as a public school goes, this belongs in a study of comparative religion, which I my neck of the woods would probably be part of a "World Cultures" or "World Civilizations" class in a high school. (I am pretty sure it is a required class in all New Jersey schools.) It does not belong in science class, because it is not science. It's really not a theory. You can't gather "evidence" one way or another. Take away the Book of Genesis and you have nothing. (The same would apply to the "creation beliefs" of any other religion.) Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory and belongs being taught in science class. There is a lot of evidence for it. There are also theories for how evolution happens -- most notably "natural selection" -- for which there is less actual evidence. There is also considerable, if not uncontrovertable, scientific evidence that the Earth is much, much older than several thousand years -- in fact billions of years old -- and that some species (like dinosaurs) have been extinct for many millions of years. The fact that it is difficult to "prove" theories about things that have been going on for millions of years, or that happened millions or billions of years ago, does not mean that these theories are not "science" -- nor that explanations based solely on a religious book are science.

FOG says: The Outdoors Hike? Camp? Surely you jest. Do people really take that attitude in your troop? Or your district or council? If so it is a lot different where I am. There is a lot of emphasis and interest in camping by the boys, and the adults support it by doing the legwork for teh activities requested by the boys. From what I have seen and heard at Roundtables and camporees, other units in our area are no different. Our troop happens to do less hiking and backpacking than some other units (and less than it should), but I think that is a matter of both the boys and adults getting into something of a "rut" as far as the kinds of activities planned, rather than any grand design or real aversion to it. So maybe you are just talking about a local issue.

Rooster says: As a God-fearing, God-loving Christian, I find it difficult not to resent the professor in this "joke". Hey Rooster, welcome back, I've missed you. Rooster, let me ask you, what are your feelings toward the other character in the joke, who commits a violent assault against someone because he doesn't like what the person said? Is it ok that he slugged someone because he thought God would want him to?

For whatever it's worth, the phrase "constitutional law" does include judicial interpretations of the Constitution, contained in reports of published court opinions. That's somewhat of an oversimplification, because some reported cases cease to be "good law" (when they are overruled by other cases); the precedential value of a case depends on what level of court it comes from (the Supreme Court obviously being the highest, but if there is no Supreme Court decision on the subject, Courts of Appeals decisions are also relevant); and a statement in a case is only authoritative if it was necessary to decide that particular issue in order to decide that particular case -- otherwise it is only "persuasive" (or not.) But the point is you can't ignore case law as a part of "constitutional law" -- or any other body of "law" for that matter. And I do think I'm qualified to say that. Whether anyone accepts it is up to them.

Adrian, other than you, nobody has been talking about penalizing "speech" in this thread, certainly not I. The subject matter here is physical violence. As an aside, Adrian, from many of your posts it seems to me that you are "hung up" on left/right ideological distinctions and that you have a need to place other people (like me) in one of these categories. I'm sorry, but I don't fit any of your labels or the neat lists of beliefs that you think go along with them.

Big Dog: Fair enough. Alas, all I can offer to return your hospitality is that our district is having a First Aid Rally tomorrow, so if you were in Central New Jersey you could come by and judge a few dressings or makeshift stretchers or whatever the boys end up having to do.

OK Ed, let's try a different aspect of the same issue. Please answer each question: 1. The people of the state of, say, California (it could be any state, if you want to make it Alabama or Vermont or wherever), through their elected legislative representatives or by referendum, pass a law that says that all public school teachers, at the beginning of every school day, must lead their students in a prayer -- any prayer chosen by the teacher. Is that ok under the U.S. Constitution? 2. Same people pass a law that says that each day, each public school teacher (or principal, over the school intercom), must lead the students in a specific, state prescribed prayer, which does not mention any specific Higher Power or specific belief, just a "generic" prayer. Is that ok? 3. Same as 2, but the prayer expresses thanks to "Allah" and requests His blessing on the students and the school. Ok? 4. Same as 3, replace "Allah" with "Jesus Christ." Ok? 5. Same as 3, replace "Allah" with "Lord, Our God, King of the Universe." How about that?

Adrian says: If NJ gets his way, the government will have sent him to the Alaska gulag for his "hate speech" long before he got the chance. Normally I'd leave this alone since this thread is starting to head into loony-land, but since you choose to refer specifically to me, let me ask you something: What on earth are you talking about? Or, to be more specific: Please quote a statement from me, from any post, that even hints that I would favor sending anyone anywhere (they didn't want to go) simply for making a statement. And since you use the word "gulag," let me ask you a few more questions: Adrian, do you think I'm a Stalinist? Do you think I'm a Communist? What exactly do you think I am?

Ed, let me ask you a question. Forget for a minute about "separation of church and state." Forget about swearing on Bibles and opening prayers in Congress and words on coins and things like that. And forget for a minute about the Boy Scouts. Just please answer this question: Do you think it is acceptable, under our Constitution, for one religious organization to be given exclusive use of a substantial piece of publicly-owned property, rent free, for 50 years, while other religious organizations are not? As I said, put the Boy Scouts out of your mind for purposes of this question. Let's say the relgious organization in question is, say, a Jewish congregation; or a Methodist church; or a Hindu temple; or any other religious organization you choose. Is it ok for Temple Beth El to get to use the local park for 50 years, rent free, while the First Baptist Church does not, if that is what the government chooses to do?

Well, FOG, then I invite you to follow the fictional Marine's example in real life, and just start slugging people you think God doesn't like. Depending on what state you're in, you probably won't go to jail the first time or even the second time, but long about the third time, well, maybe you'll end up someplace nice where they have a computer in the library and you can still chat with us when you're not in lockdown.

Big Dog, when I read the first few words of your post I thought, aha, someone agrees with me. It kind of went "downhill" from there though. So I'll ask you, if it were legal for you to go up to an atheist, or someone else you think is not showing sufficient respect for God, the American flag, hot dogs or apple pie, and commit a violent physical assault against them, is that what you would do? Seriously? And, by the way, when you say: Living in a land that seems to be swinging toward having no respect for the things I hold dear, ie God, the American Flag, hot dogs and apple pie... Leaving aside the hot dogs and apple pie, which I think receive universal respect regardless of ideology (though one of my children and one of my brothers will only eat "not dogs" and other animal-friendly products), I'm wondering what country you're living in. Seems to me that the country I'm living in is swinging in the other direction.

Please excuse a bit of wet-blanketude here, but why exactly is this funny? Because someone appointed themselves to commit an assault in the name of God? It has happened many times in real life too, with the nature of the "assault" ranging from verbal abuse to mass murder.

KS, I was thinking the same thing; it's surprising to learn that he was only in his 30s when I watched him. Maybe that is why I thought he was dead already. When I saw the story online I had to check the date to make sure they hadn't recycled a story from a few years ago. I must have mixed him up with someone else, and I don't think it was "Mr. Rogers," who did die within the last year. "Mr. Rogers" was slightly after my time, while Capt. Kangaroo was my time.

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. (Attributed to Yogi Berra)

Why are Venturing Crews allowed to conduct Boy Scout advancement, but Boy Scout Troops are not allowed to give out Venturing awards, even to members of Venture patrols? Is there some supperiority about Venturing that makes it capable of properly carrying out its own program and that of another seperate program within the BSA? In my opinion it is because Venturing has multiple "functions." One is as its own program, and for that function it has its own advancement program. But another function -- and maybe this is not "official" but it clearly is true -- is to provide a program for older Boy Scouts to go into when they don't want to be in a troop anymore. They get the option of being in a different kind of program (all older boys, coed, more emphasis on the activities they want to do, more options, etc.) but they also get to continue with their Boy Scout advancement if that is what they want to do. Maybe this keeps some boys in "Scouting" who would otherwise drop out. I am not saying that this is a rational justification for allowing boys in Venturing to do Boy Scout advancement -- I am really not familiar enough with Venturing to give an opinion -- but it is a pragmatic reason. I also have to wonder whether this may also be influenced by the way the LDS Church arranges its Scouting program. I do not say this to be controversial or offensive to anyone, and if I have my facts wrong I hope someone will tell me. But it is my understanding that in LDS-chartered units, a boy must leave the troop at age 14 and join a Venturing crew. Is that right? Or maybe it is a Varsity team at age 14 and a Venturing crew at a later age. It doesn't matter which, or what the exact ages are. The point is that if a boy could earn Boy Scout ranks only as a member of a Boy Scout troop, and had to leave the troop at 14 (or whatever), that age would in effect become the deadline for Eagle -- four years earlier than in non-LDS troops. So that would be a reason, at least in LDS units, for wanting Venturers to be able to continue with Boy Scout advancement. Assuming that what I am "wondering" is correct, I am not suggesting which way the "cause and effect" may have gone. I also am not suggesting there is anything wrong with any of this. It is a matter of pragmatic choices prevailing over what may seem logical or consistent, but most of life is that way, why should Scouting be any different?

I'm sure it is the same Mike Long; the profile for Mike Long in this forum lists the same troop web site address as the one posted above. Obviously this is a terrible tragedy. Even more than just losing a child, can you imagine what this father will go through in his mind? And it will probably never get any better. All from a mistake. It boggles the mind.