NJCubScouter

Ok, let's go back to what you said. You said this: I asked you for proof of that "pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units". That would require that you give multiple examples of a unit being sued and the BSA failing to defend the unit in the lawsuit. You haven't given one example. Your first link doesn't work, and your second and third links involve lawsuits that have not been filed, but you think they might be. Even if they are, it doesn't prove your point unless a unit is sued and the BSA leaves them hanging out to dry, which can't happen unless the lawsuit is actually filed.

I am not talking about access to facilities. I am talking about ownership of a unit, which is what a CO does.

I didn't see this post before. I guess this is going to be sort of Part 2 to my answer to your other question. A "public charter" school may present an interesting question. I am somewhat unclear on the nature of these schools in terms of public vs. private. Are they public schools or private schools? I know they receive public funds through tuition for the students paid for by the public school districts, but in and of itself that does not make it a public school. If, for example, an office-supply company sold exclusively to public schools, all of its revenue would be derived from public funds, but that still wouldn't make it a publicly owned company. I suspect that a "public charter" school would be classified as "private", but I am not certain. If I am correct, they could be a CO of a BSA unit. Even so, a better move might be to have a "parents organization" be the CO but still meet in the school. I suspect your DE can be helpful in this area. As for your question about sports teams, chess club, etc.: If it is a PUBLIC school, the football team cannot exclude atheists, nor can the chess team, marching band, robotics club, etc. The difference between those teams and clubs, and a Cub Scout pack or Boy Scout troop, is that the BSA says its units MUST exclude atheists.

Uh-oh, now I've done it. I will try to say this as neutrally as I can. We have had dozens of threads on this subject and I don't necessarily want to start another one. I just want to answer your question. A public school is owned and operated by a goevernmental entity (usually a school district.) It is therefore part of "the government" for purposes of the constitutional restrictions on what "the government" may do or not do. That includes the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause, which has been interpreted to mean that the government may not provide preferential treatment to one religion or religious belief over others. The BSA as a matter of National policy denies membership to atheists, and requires its units to do the same. Therefore, if "the government" (such as a public school) owned and operated a BSA unit, it would be denying the benefits of its program to certain people (atheists) on the basis of religious belief (or non-belief). The government cannot do that. Therefore, public schools cannot be CO's for BSA units. Some people disagree with what I just said, but even the BSA seems to agree with it. When the BSA was challenged on this point some years back, they switched the charter for all remaining public-school-chartered units to other organizations. In many cases (including the Cub Scout pack that my son was in and that I was a leader in), this did not change where the unit meets. The pack still meets at the school, but it is chartered to the PTO, not the school.

This has to be one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen in this forum, and I've seen plenty. It seems like people are discussing every decision of the BSA on membership and leadership standards over the past 30+ years, all at the same time, and in a few cases it has been unclear which specific issues are being discussed in any given post. Not to mention we are at 17 pages and counting in just over a week. I can just imagine someone new to the forum, and/or new to Scouting, trying to figure all of this out.

I couldn't hear you, it was too windy.

If the CO is a public school, meaning the school itself or the board of education, rather than a separate organization AT the school such as a PTA or PTO, I would think there is a problem with it being a CO at all. Not mentioning the name of any long-time poster who might be interested in this subject, if he's still checking this forum.

Yes, the full opinion, such as it is, is at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Gerald_Mayo_v._Satan_and_His_Staff I especially like the line about the instructions to the U.S. Marshal for service of the complaint. And yes, anyone can sue anyone, but some lawsuits are more likely than others. At the time the time of the change in the adult leadership policy, almost two years ago, there were dire predictions in this forum of a flood of lawsuits against religious CO's. I haven't heard of a single one.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily make what you believe correct. I guess "try" is the key word there. To try is not necessarily to succeed. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a parent suing to get his/her son into a particular unit that does not want the youth, if there is another unit available in which the youth will be welcomed. In the case of the 8-year-old from New Jersey, the parents sued because the BSA would not let their son into any Cub Scout pack. I haven't seen any more articles about that situation, but one would hope that the policy change resolved that lawsuit. I am not familiar with that "rather pathetic track record". Can you identify what cases you are talking about?

As I and a few others have observed in this thread, based on the language of the BSA statement, it seems pretty clear that no unit will be required to accept a transgender boy as a Cub Scout or Boy Scout. So no "defense" will be necessary.

I think we're getting our sashes confused here, or at least, I seem to be. The original post from 2010 asked about wearing the OA sash at Scout Sunday. Chadamus resurrected the thread 7 years later to ask about wearing the MB sash at Scout Sunday. Some of the posts after that have seemed to be about the OA sash. If we are talking about the MB sash, I don't think there is any doubt that it can be worn at a Scout Sunday service.

We did not have any youth members speaking at Scout Sunday. Our Scouts did assist with the service as they typically do, handing out the programs (if that's the correct term), to the arriving worshippers, ringing the bell and helping with the collection. The pastor recognized us and our relationship with the church and the community, as she always does, but to my recollection her words about the troop were somewhat lengthier and more effusive this year I guess we must be doing something right. I usually have one or two of the older congregants coming up to me and discussing their past Scouting activities. I spent some time after the service yesterday speaking with a woman who told me she was a commissioner in the early 70's (I did not know women could be commissioners back then) and that she received the Silver Beaver award the first year it was awarded to women, 1974. Before that the BSA awarded the Silver Fawn as the council-level equivalent for women. I was a Scout at that time, but had not been aware of that part of the history of these awards. I also mentioned to her that my father had been in the same council she was and had received the Silver Beaver in 1982. She said his name sounded familiar. She was probably just being polite, but that's ok. (I just realized this was in "Scouting around the World" so my story about Scouters from New Jersey probably doesn't fit, but that's ok too.)

I was responding to what Stosh actually said, not to some historical analysis of the usual meaning of some of the words he used. I was not referring to any particular change. I was just reacting to what Stosh said. Staying in an organization and attempting to influence decisions in your direction is one of several options that one has when one believes a change is required. But I guess I will add, "consensus" means unanimity. I realize that a lot of people use it to mean a majority, or a supermajority, or close to unanimous, but it doesn't really mean any of those things. The BSA has never operated by "consensus", whether it be on membership standards or advancement requirements or whether the rank patches should have colorful backgrounds or just khaki, or whether the SPL patch should have 2.5 green bars or 3 silver bars. Occasionally they will make a show of asking the membership their opinions, but we should be under no delusion that this is binding on National in any way. I happen to have agreed with the last three decisions on membership standards (2013, 2015, and this latest one) but that does't mean I necessarily applaud the manner in which they were made, particularly the ones in 2013 or 2015. I actually find it refreshing that this last time, they didn't even make a pretense of asking the members when the ultimate result was (in my opinion) inevitable. And, if we are talking about the 2013 and 2015 decisions (though I'm not sure why we are, again, but if that's what people want to do, have fun), those decisions resulted from a combination of factors, including internal pressure (including some defiant behavior by certain councils), external pressure (including loss of funding from past supporters of Scouting, which you could count as "internal" as well, and concern about losing future lawsuits), and a desire to "get past" the issues, which I guess could be viewed as "internal pressure" as well. I think the BSA was also concerned that it was on the brink of becoming a regional organization rather than the national organization that it has always been and desperately wishes to remain.

That's funny because in the law school I went to, at the time I went there, "Red" would not have been considered an insult. But it was nothing anything was calling me. I was considered a right-winger by some, and occasionally heard the word "Zionist" aimed at me, which was not intended as a compliment. The big heroes among the student body (and some of the faculty) were Fidel Castro, Che Guevarra and Daniel Ortega (then the Communist leader of Nicaragua; this was in the mid-80's.) I am sure Yasser Arafat had a fan club there too, but I tended to avoid those discussions. It's all a matter of perspective.

The question is, does this unit's council and/or National know about this, and what if anything are they doing about it? I see at least one person in that photo who clearly appears to be a girl, in a Cub Scout uniform. Is she registered as a Cub Scout? And this is not the first indication in this forum that some packs are indeed allowing girls to "participate". Whether that means they are also allowed to "join" is another question. Depending on the answers, it may be that Cub Scouts has already become coed as a matter of local option, and the BSA isn't telling us. Or maybe not.

It seems to me that all you are really saying here is that people have the right to leave the BSA if they want. Of course they do. They always have. But they also have the right to not leave, and to try to influence the organization to change from the inside. Or they can just stay and "live with it." As you say, freedom is important.

I was wondering the same thing about myself. I guess it would make us Bolsheviks or something.

Midwest Scouter, it would be interesting to see some verification of such a surprising claim. Of course, if doing so would disclose more information about your location than you wish to provide, I would understand. It's just that I wouldn't want to see the forum go into a state of mass hysteria (not that THAT could ever happen) over something that might turn out to be a misinterpretation of something someone said. (Not that THAT could ever happen.)

Well, if there really is disagreement on fundamental unit policy between the CO and the volunteers and it can't be resolved, we all know who wins. Right after the Dale decision the pastor of the "welcoming" church that is our CO almost fired the entire troop, until some silver-tongued Scouters somehow managed to smooth things over. I wasn't there, I was still a Den Leader then.

I just want to point out that until yesterday, ALL of the posts in this thread were from 2003, as in 13 years ago. There is no problem with reopening an old thread, although some people prefer not to participate in such threads. The main reason I bring this up is that now that the thread is reopened and has jumped to near the top of the list again, some people are responding to threads from 2003. Again, that is fine, but you should probably not expect a response. CharityAK has not participated in the forum since 2003, approximately one month after this thread was last active. Evmori, one of the most prolific posters in the history of this forum, stopped participating on a regular basis in 2008, though he did pop back in for one post in 2014 and another in 2015. Some of the other names I see in the first 1.5 pages of the thread are also "blasts from the past."

I think it follows from my earlier post on the local option that the BSA is not asking you to be involved in this, nor are they likely to in the future. "Our organization’s local councils will help find units that can provide for the best interest of the child." I think you would agree that, given your opinions and concerns regarding this subject, your troop does not meet that description.

I would not make that assumption, fellow counselor. The BSA is regarding this child (using the example of the Cub Scout in New Jersey) as a boy and accepting him as a boy, even though his birth certificate says he is a girl and he presumably has the physical characteristics of a girl. There is nothing in the BSA's statement that indicates he is going to be regarded as a boy for some purposes (like membership) and a girl for other purposes (like YP.) If that is going to be the case, I think the BSA had better say so pretty quickly, or else inadvertent YP violations are inevitable. Perhaps @@RichardB could educate us on this subject?

Everything creates a "risk" of lawsuits. Just getting up in the morning and going to work sets in motion a continuous chain of possible events that could lead someone to file a lawsuit, whether meritorious or not. Of course, you can't avoid it by not getting out of bed, the bed might break, there's another lawsuit. Fortunately, the vast majority of these lawsuit-causing events never actually happen. But you never know. I think a more interesting question is this: In the 18 months or so that the BSA has had the local option for openly gay adult leaders, have there been any lawsuits? I realize that is a fairly short period of time, and in many states the statute of limitations for something that happened on Day 1 might not even have run out yet. But the fact remains that I have not heard of any lawsuits over this, and I strongly suspect that if there had been, the news would have found its way into this forum. I also recall that lawsuits were predicted in this forum while the local option was being considered and immediately after it was adopted. But so far, as far as I know, no lawsuits. On the other hand, we know that under the OLD policy, banning openly gay leaders and probably openly gay Scouts, there WERE lawsuits. We also know that under the OLD (but short-lived) policy banning transgendered boys from the boys-only programs of the BSA, there was at least one lawsuit. One of the newspaper articles linked at or near the beginning of this thread says that the parents of the 8 year old child from Secaucus, New Jersey who was kicked out of the Cub Scouts had already filed a lawsuit before the policy was changed. So we KNOW that the old policies resulted in actual lawsuits. All we have when it comes to local option are predictions, which so far apparently have not come to pass.

It appears that the answer to that is yes, it is a matter of local option. (But not the same kind of local option applicable to openly gay adults, see more about that below.) Here is what was said by the BSA: I am filling in the "blanks" a little bit here, but I am pretty sure that means that a transgender boy (born a girl, now identifies and "lives as" a boy) and his parents may go to council, and the council will locate a unit that will accept him. I do not know how else to reasonably interpret "units that can provide for the best interest of the child." If the council places the child in a unit where the leaders don't want him because he is transgender, and/or they don't believe transgender is a "real thing", or the religious beliefs of the CO cause them to prohibit transgendered people from participating, that is obviously not in the "best interest of the child." "The best interest of the child" can only be achieved where, at the very least, the Scout is going to be welcomed. (It may involve more than that, such as a unit where leaders have experience in dealing with this kind of situation, or where there may already be one or more children in the same status; I am guessing those things would not be "required", but they would put the unit that meets those criteria higher on the list that the council registrar (or whoever) would call in the rare instances where this comes up.) But anyway, that does sound like local option to me. And not the much more limited local option applied to openly gay leaders, where you have to be a religious organization/CO to exercise the option. And not the "uniform" rule of acceptance, with no local option, that seems to apply to openly gay youth. So we have three different standards for three different situations. Whether that is going to be viable in the long run, I don't know. (Added note: I agree with Matt, this has to be a local option, and fortunately, apparently, the BSA agrees.)

It's already been conferred, and nobody is rioting over it.