ohadam

Johnson understands the legalities. He also understands his position has no legs, so he spins it. Don't confuse spin with misunderstanding.

Johnson with his faulty logic isn't helping us.

Daniel Boone once said he'd never been lost. "I've been confused for weeks at a time, but never lost."

When I was in law school a professor of constitutional law said something I took to heart: "Civil discussion is the hallmark and sine qua non (without which, not) of American society. The importance of a party's position on an issue under discussion is always secondary to the importance of the discussion itself."

He demanded civility.

I try to remember that when engaged in a discussion with a person who disagrees with me (and is therefore wrong--lol!). So I try not to use words that carry pejorative connotations, even if the strict meaning of the word would apply (e.g., the always-tempting "ignorant," which strictly means "without knowledge," but connotes worse) because the other party cannot quickly tell whether the strict meaning or broad connotation is intended. I failed to follow my normal practice when I said fear of the risk presented by homosexuals is homophobia by definition. I meant it only strictly, responding to the (illogical, I thought) statement that "even the least homophobic" individuals fear (or abhor) the risk presented by homosexual leaders.

The word bigotry is similar. It is a fine old word meaning unbending adherence to personal views. But because it now connotes worse, I fear the word can no longer be used in civil discussion.

Let us remember that we are serving the discussion, here, not the issue.

And let us fore-think what we will lose if we close off discussion.

And if we find some views expressed here to be reprehensible, and some people to be abusive or of bad faith, let us remember we can take our business elsewhere, and in the meantime do our part by speaking with honesty and reason.

(Which we've done pretty well, I think.)(This message has been edited by ohadam)

If you see gay leaders as a risk, you're homophobic by definition.

Thanks for the info, bob--the websites and titles. I'm pretty well educated in the area, but am always looking for new stuff. And I've found a UU church nearby and am going to check it out.

I'm not so concerned about my own spirituality conflicting with BSA rules--I just don't think it's fair or sensible to declare that people with differnt views cannot be "the best kind of" citizens.

Adam

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member . . . . The [bSA's] policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership. [] . . . . The applicant must . . . subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise and the Scout Law."

Hmm. I'll have to consider whether subscribing to the Declaration of Religious Principle means I have to agree that "no member can grow into the best citizen without recognizing an obligation to God", or whether I can get away with acknowledging that BSA believes it and promising to "give definite attention to religious life."

If I decide it requires me to agree, then you're right, Ed, I'll have to give up my leadership position, because I don't agree and I won't lie.

The leader application said I have to agree? Uh oh.

"Because all things being equal, a mother and father provide a healthier environment for raising kids than any of the other parental options, which is supported by plenty of experts and studies."

I have heard multiple times, including from a couple of sociologists on Penn & Teller's episode examining the concept of the "traditional family", that there is no evidence of this at all.

"The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen".

* * *

Other than atheists with an agenda, no one else cares!"

Ed., I'm not an athiest and I don't have an agenda, and I find this "best kind of citizen" language to be very disturbing. I'm actually pretty dismayed that this sort of language still exists in our society at all, and stunned that it exists in the BSA.

I've been thinking lately that sometimes a nonsensical stance only seems nonsensical because you don't know all the facts.

On its face, BSA's gay policy is nonsensical: We gratuitously take a moral stance not mandated by our religious beliefs (which are universalist, nonsectarian), the basis of which is our unsubstantiated and unsupportable secular rationale that a certain group of people cannot be morally straight.

No explanation has ever been given. (Look at the BSA legal website--Why do you discriminate against gays? We have the constitutional right to do so.) (The "they can't be morally straight" argument is patently a post-facto fabrication.) The position makes no sense . . . until you know more.

The "more," I think, is that BSA, like any proselytizing, membership-driven organization, sacrifices values at the organizational level in order to maintain membership and serve the greater good. I think we've pretty well accepted in these forums that a professional scouter's motives aren't a volunteer's, and that while we all say it's about the kids first and last, for the professional scouter it just ain't true no matter how many posters you see in the scout office.

For them, they serve the program first and the kids second. This not an unreasonable thing to do--it's reasonable to think that the greater good the program provides is worth a little hypocrisy and a few lost kids.

How would the program suffer if we got rid of the hypocrisy? Massive membership loss. Soon as we admit gays, all the conservative Christian groups will drop out.

After receiving lots of letters from councils and districts and units indicating the policy should change, BSA studied these problems, concluding in 2002 that policies did not need to change. I might've done the same, were I in charge.

My 2 cents.

In the months running up to his bid for re-election, each of the last 3 Republican Presidents proposed a constitutional amendment.

Reagan: prayer in schools

Bush I: flag burning

Bush II: marriage

I don't pay much mind, anymore.

Eamonn don't be a big twit taking Scouts to the handbook is an idiotic thing to do and you need to have your head examined.

[/irony]

Ed, I don't know how you ask it, and don't know the relationship you have with your scouts, but I'd probably pull my boys from the troop of a SM who was controntational about belief in God because he wouldn't be able to help them as much as someone else might.

I want my four boys to grow up to be spiritual beings. Confrontation from an authority figure would be more likely to alienate them than help them, in my opinion.

"If it's true, you don't need to belabor it. If it isn't, no amount of belaborment will help."

Adam

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Ditto.

"[Troops] have been diminished by many of my colleagues in the media," North said. "They have been described by some politicians as like Stalin and Pol Pot and those who fought for Adolf Hitler."

Show me.

Beaver, we all know we can do it. We're talking about whether we should do it.

A constitutional right is not a moral mandate.

Fotoscout, I'm going to steal your ideas for myself and also cc them to my unit commissioner.

(I'm glad to finally get into an area I know something about, not like cubmastering.)

Scenario: Organization hires individual and takes reasonable steps to screen, train and supervise him (but not unreasonable steps). These reasonable steps raise no red flags about the individual. Individual commits a crime the organization could not reasonably have foreseen. Victim sues organization.

Result: Victim loses lawsuit.

As far as I know, the result would be the same in every state.

Plus, when the flak for discrimination comes down we can say it wasn't us, because we're for letting people and charter organizations associate with whom they please--it's the American Way, and by the flag and by God, we're the BSA.

Plus, kids who are discriminated against by one CO would have a choice of scouting with another CO, which now they don't. Meaning that we'd have a chance to reach and help them, which now we don't, which over the years might prevent, what, a suicide or two, for example?

Eh?

Heh. I advise you to pretend to, then, boyo.

There are two curtains in debate: Passion and Effectiveness. You cannot go through both.

I'd argue post hoc doesn't ergo prompter hoc--just because it happens after doesn't mean it happens because of. But it might have. I know of nothing that would rule it out. However, my impression is that lightning is pretty low on people's list of things to take steps against, and this lightning strike went the same way as other natural tragedies in and out of scouting--headline for a day, forgotten tomorrow.

The exact number isnt important. Whether its 400,000 or 90,000 members lost, the point is, were five places to the left of the decimal point.

I proffer the following thesis: Membership is like capitalisma free market systemand the markets judgments are always correct. The corollary is that an organization draws the membership, and its meetings the attendance, that it deserves.

The BSA sells coordination of opportunities for 1) enrichment, 2) fun, and 3) instillation of character values. Thats the product. Putting aside idiosyncratic phenomena (personality conflicts, misunderstandings, etc.), 99% of the people who refuse to buy this product do so because its too expensive, i.e., does not provide as enough satisfaction to justify the expenditure of time and effort.

In three years of pack-level observation in a successful pack but a failing council I have never once heard that non-price issues were important. In other words, I have never heard that issues affecting somebody else were even relevant, much less deal breakers. So I dont think religious, political or safety issues are the main drivers for membership loss.

I propose that the causes of membership drop-off are, in a hierarchical order:

1. Less time (the price is too high, 60%):

a. More and better extracurricular opportunities available;

b. More 2-job families;

c. More travel time to work;

2. Less relevance (the product is inefficient, 25%):

a. More and better extracurricular opportunities available;

b. Decreased sense that a BSA-type organization is an efficient way to instill BSA-type values;

3. Less patience with delayed gratification (inefficient, 10%):

a. More and better entertainment media (television, games, Internet);

b. Faster-paced stimuli (todays cartoons arent Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner, the games arent pinball and Pac Man, and clicking an icon is faster than opening a book);

4. Less program available/less focus (not enough bang for the buck, 5%):

a. Less money;

b. Less time to reflect on what would be a good program or to be creative in the face of reduced funding;

c. Less time to deliver whatever program is decided upon;

5. Antipathy (the product brand is immoral, 1%):

a. Political issues;

b. Religious issues;

c. Safety faults;

d. Scandal.

(Get your grain of salt here: People probably assume a Cubmaster wouldnt be receptive to their gripes about BSA, and therefore probably wouldnt tell me the truth about why theyre not buying my product. And yes, I know theres repetition and the whole doesnt add to 100%.)

Ive presented roughly a dozen issues broken into 5 categories. We can rant and rave about one or another issue, and we shouldit might be productive and satisfying and fun. But I dont think we can isolate one issue and say this is the culprit. If we want to improve the system we should focus our energies so as to maximize our returnnot at the 1% issues (4a-d), which even if solved, would bring only a 1% return, nor at the 70% issues (1a-c) which are intractable, but at those middling issues (2-4) as to which we can hope for a 5-10% return.

If we want simply to rant (and I like ranting), we should pick whichever issue interests us most.

BSA national should get out of the business of deciding which group can be clean and morally straight and which cant. Let the COs do it.

My understanding, which Im willing to have corrected, is that the BSA self-insures for $1 million and purchases insurance for amounts over that. Since this case is for $150 million, its the insurer on the hook. That means the insurer gets to hire the lawyer and decide what legal defense to put on. I'm not sure, therefore, that the title of this thread is correct insofar as it calls the lawyer a "BSA lawyer." BSA has its own lawyers. Is this guy one of them? Let's find out.

I work in a court in Los Angeles. I see a few cases like this a year, and work just down the hall from where the Catholic scandal litigation is going on. In that litigation, Cardinal Mahoney generally wants to conduct the defense along certain ethical lines. He is being repeatedly overruled by the insurer. Theres even an appellate decision reversing a settlement to which the Church agreed but the insurer didnt.

Merlyn, theres probably not much the BSA can, or should, do about its defense. The BSA, which in the policy agreed to cooperate with the defense, gets little say in the content of legal papers, and any public statements it makes would not only be unwise, but would have to be vague. (All this is assuming BSA wants to stay insured today and to be insurable tomorrow.)

Beavah, we require that charitable organizations take only reasonable steps. We indict them only for their own failings, not for the unforeseeable crimes of their volunteers. On the current facts, I see virtually no possiblity for BSA liability here.

Ed, I love you, man, but you gotta calm down if you want to be effective.