tortdog

No doubt when your son visited, the LDS troop hid the holy hand grenade so that he could not touch it.

The BSA will (i) hold its values and continue as it has since the Dale case, or (ii) change and allow groups that hold diverse moral values to enlarge its base.

If the former, it will continue as is, with the percentage of scouters to the population about the same.

If the latter, there will be a large (more than 20%) exodus from the BSA from historical sponsors (mainly church sponsored units), leaving the BSA more like the YMCA or Girl Scouts. (Not a put down of those other organizations, but just on a different plane in my opinion.)

>Let's see Pack/Troop/Team/Crew & ??? to make 5? Don't mean to split hairs, oh heck yes I do... I'm trying to be a pain! How am I doing??

No worries at all. I at first put four but backtracked because the 11-year olds are in a completely different troop than the 12-13 year olds. It may not be a separate registered unit, but you would never know it by watching since it has its own scoutmaster and assistants and the 11-year olds never meet with the main troop. BTW, the troop goes to one scout camp (further away) while the 11-year olds go to a close one (so they can return each night).

>On the idea of lack of training that you've experienced, your Stake YM President needs to get closer with the district/council (all depends on how your stake/council boundaries work) commissioner. You know about UCs right?

Don't even get me started. When I was on Stake YM Presidency, rare was anyone else from the stake at district committee meetings. Every blue moon someone from the Stake Primary would show up (for Cubs), but I was it. When I was called back to the unit level (I did SOMETHING right in the preexistence), all stake participation at the DC level stopped. (I'm not touting my horn, just whining about inaction.) Again, in my experience this is too frequent. I think sometimes the LDS Church takes the BSA for granted. I'm glad to hear that your stake is doing it right.

>Are your bishopric counselor over YM serving this function?

Nope. Should. I want the counselor the head of the committee, but...

>There's two good guys that given a little training, could smooth the problems out. They could also drag the correct leaders with them to roundtables and trainings. (just like other units need (tips hat to Trevorum, and smiles) )

Yes oh yes oh yes. Maybe I can work through or ward clerk. He reads the bishopric the riot act from the manual, and definitely we have room for improvement (but our Varsity team kicks...rear end).

>Good luck with this, it's what we did to make our stakes work more closely with our council. This is why the stakes in our council can show similar numbers of trained leaders. You know the push back can always be "Let's see what President Hinkely says... you'd do what he says wouldn't you?" Just be ready to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I am all over what you wrote. We'll get there. Right now, due to my selfishness, my focus is getting the Varsity teams working council wide. We are the largest council in the nation (but only 10 stakes) and we only have about 3-4 Varsity teams that are really doing the program. Baby steps and we're there.

I don't think that anyone meant something offensive, more just trying ot understand. Just some comments:

Regarding the selection of the scout leaders by the bishops, my experience has been that the bishopric picks the best people that they can find to lead those BSA units. Over and over again the Church impresses upon the bishops that our youth are our most important assets. We Christ who taught that a person who offends a child would be best to throw a millstone around his neck and jump off a bridge. These callings are among THE most important in the Church (if not the most important). I would venture to guess that many among our 12 apostles believe that a youth leadership calling is more important than their own.

Of course, sometimes we don't get it right and it does show.

Regarding the age groups (and this is kind of unfair), the BSA has a program to separate the scouts once they hit 14 by moving them into Varsity. So, actually, the LDS units are the main units that follow the "complete" BSA program. Okay...but that's kind of unfair because the only reason the Varsity program exists is because the LDS Church worked with the BSA to come up with something to work by age group. Nonetheless, I don't see how the LDS Church is ignoring age requirements when it is following the BSA program.

On the trained leaders, you are blessed to have so many. In our stake of 10 wards, you are lucky to have ONE trained leaders with each unit (four to five units per ward). The result is our district is ALWAYS having to harp on the LDS Church to get trained so it can get quality district. But...since the council is not supposed to strong-arm anyone (they seem paranoid), I do the strong-arming for them.

The LDS Church scout leaders can really improve on this part. We have some work to do. BTW, I've served as a scout leader in Sacramento, Chicago and Houston, so I know it's a wide-spread problem. What I don't know is whether non-LDS units also have a problem. What I DO know is that the LDS Church STRONGLY encourages the leaders to get trained. It's a requirement in the LDS Scouting Manual. Furthermore, we are supposed to get our Woodbadge within the first year of a scout calling.

Now...where I see a strong parting of the ways with the BSA and the BSA LDS units. The LDS Church does not support co-ed scouting at all. It does not support men and women adult leaders overnighters (even among spouses). Men are to work with the boys. Women are to work with the girls. There is one week each month where there are coed activities (not scouting, though). The reason for this policy is a strong aversion to even the semblance of misconduct, with overnighters of men/women and boys/girls to invite improper behavior. That's the policy and I don't ever see that changing.

Meanwhile, some people think is a hunky-dory idea to have children use their dance routines to mimic the moves of a strip dancer so long as they have a little more covered.

Oh yes...why oh why are more kids wanting to test the waters of sex, with children even raping each other?

Actually, Merlyn, the plantiff's parent made your argument and the court disagreed. The court looked to churches and almost laughed out loud when the plaintiff's argued that the BSA was a church or a form of religion. (If the BSA WAS a religion, it's a pretty screwed up one since part of it thinks Saturday is sacred, the other part thinks that Sunday is sacred, part thinks cows are holy, part thinks we shouldn't eat pork...I mean...talk about MESSED UP!)

In seriousness, though, if the BSA literature included in it solicitations for the children to come to the BSA and pledge a duty to God, the court thought that might cross the line...but...not the way the literature is currently written.

>The Oregon court found the opposite

It's all wet. It will lose because Oregon (if appealed to the feds) goes to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court always overturns the 9th Circuit.

>and the Michigan decision is being appealed.

Yeah! Isn't that exciting? Hopefully we get this to the U.S. Supreme Court and we put the final nail in the coPlus, if the Michigan case holds, churches can demand (and will get) the same kind of access to students, because to allow the Boy Scouts but deny a church would be viewpoint discrimination.

Certainly not to jump on you, Prarie, but don't misunderstand the import of the Varsity and Venturing programs on the troops. Remember, almost every LDS BSA ward/parish has (i) a troop, (ii) a team and (iii) a crew. To receive awards/recognition in the team and crew, the scouts have to provide service. And, that service is often required to be provided to younger youth. So, my Varsity Scouts to earn the basketball pin have to teach the rules of the game to younger youth. Guess who is their prime target: the troops. So the younger scouts DO receive training from the older scouts. I would argue that where you have all four units working together (pack/troop/team/crew), you have the BEST program possible. The cubs look forward to getting to the troop. The troop wants to move up to the team. The team wants to get to the crew. Why? Each level brings far more intense activites/training and experiences.

>Several comments also that the LDS Scouters have what seems to be a low percentage of attendance at training. Once again, haven't there been many comments in other threads about the importance of training? Is "drafting" leaders going to get you leaders that are really interested in the Scouting program?

I think that's a very legitimate concern. It's always been my view that I would rather have a truly voluntary BSA leader than one "drafted" to lead. However, as others have expressed, prior to the LDS bishop extending a calling to a member to be a BSA leader, the entire bishopric meets in prayer to consider a person who would best serve the youth. That person then does have a choice to refuse the call - and some do.

But if you look at it like this, when we are baptized in the LDS Church and sustain our leaders (the local bishop) we believe we have committed to do whatever is necessary to serve Christ and his kingdom (via the church). If you accept a calling and do not magnify it, you have broken your covenants. That's a little daunting, I would think.

But hey...

Absolutely. I first referenced the case here:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=94655&p=8

A summary of the case is here:

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=468&DID=35571

Merlyn. You will be happy to know that the court found that the BSA is STILL allowed into the classroom to explain the Boy Scout program and distribute the literature. So life moves forward and everyone is at peace.

You hit on one of the difficulties LDS units face with leadership. Our leaders are all "called" to the task. The process is that the Bishop (kind of like the local Catholic priest) "calls" a member to fill a position in the Church, as the entire Church (including bishops) are all volunteers. Once the Bishop issues the calling to the member, the member chooses to accept or reject the calling. If the calling is accepted, the member is expected to "magnify" the calling, which generally means learn what is expected and do better than that.

Unfortunately with the Scouting callings, too often the member is not informed about BSA training and so forth. Often the members are in the calling for only a brief period of time. These could all be rectified, but takes the attention of the local leaders.

There has been some guidance from LDS Scout leaders that members in the Scout callings should hold that position for 5-7 years. If that were the norm, as opposed to the exception, LDS units would not have the difficulties they so often bring upon themselves (which only hurts the boys).

So how do we fix it? One step at a time. In our own stake (made up of 10 wards/parishes in Houston), the gung-ho LDS-BSA units keep trying to drag the under-performing LDS-BSA units to the roundtables, training, etc. We go to the individual leaders and offer our help Why? Well, frankly in the Varsity program we need other Varsity units to compete against...so it's in our own interest. I guess we're being selfish.

Merlyn, whether you like it or not there is already court precedent that the BSA can distribute its literature at public schools. The court found that the BSA literature is not promoting religion.

First, I call being "pushed to the brink" when you are forced to defend a decision in public court. The ACLU dragged the BSA there. The ACLU forced the BSA to have one-on-one's with the major supporting organizations of the BSA, which resulted in a firm policy that I doubt the BSA will retreat from for a long time to come.

So...the gay lobby made it's own bed.

>as I remember, the Texas sodomy law that recently saw its end was rejected because the sodomy law (a very loose interpretation of the act in this case) was being applied ONLY to gays when, in fact, those acts included were also practiced by non-gay members of the Texas population (they just weren't being prosecuted).

While your summary of the Texas law (still remains on our books) is correct, your analysis of the Court's reasoning is not. The Supreme Court struck down all laws respecting sodomy, as it saw a Constitutional right to sodomize another person in the privacy of one's bedroom. I don't recall a right to privacy ever being debated by any legislative body, but there it is.

>In response, for some reason (wink, wink), the leaders of government in Texas decided it would be better to get rid of the law.

You are incorrect. The People of Texas have not removed this law from its books. The People of Texas are prohibited from enforcing this law because the Supreme Court said the U.S. Constitution prohibits it.

The Supreme Court is incorrect in its interpretation. Constitutional rights are the result of the consent of the People. They are in the Constitution only by a super-majority of the People agreeing to put them there. Never in the history of the Union has Congress ever debated adding a right of privacy (let alone protection to engage in sodomy) to our Constitution.

The Supreme Court errs. The Supreme Court overruled about 200 years of precedent. The dissent is correct that the Supreme Court had no right to change the law.

Merlyn, here's where you don't get it. The BSA is not a religion. It only requires duty to God. It doesn't ask who your God is. It doesn't ask how you worship your God. It merely asks this question: Do you commit to do your duty to your God?

If the answer is yes, then you are in.

If the answer is no, then you are out.

It's really that simple. That's not discrimination based on religion (since you can be Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, anything). It IS discrimination against only those who refuse to do their duty to God.

Regarding your fear of the BSA precedent allowing churches to proselyte on school grounds, that's unfounded. The court case I cited made clear that the BSA is not a religion and does not proselyte. Further, in the BSA literature it doesn't ask people who believe in God to come join. While that is a requirement, it is not the solicitation. A purely religious group such as the LDS Church would never meet that standard, and thus would be precluded from proselyting students on school property during school hours.

Your fears are unfounded.

First, fighting the BSA helps the ACLU coffers because it panders to its supporters, AND they get free bucks in the way of legal fees. While it's true that there is merit to awarding a winning plaintiff for suing the government for infringement of civil rights, why shouldn't the People (the taxpayers) be entitled to attorney fees from the ACLU when the ACLU is wrong?

If it's hard to believe, let's see the ACLU return the taxpayer's money.

The ACLU is the one suing. The ACLU is costing both sides the attorney fees. When the ACLU makes a mistake, it just files another lawsuit and starts over. Meanwhile, the government has to pay its own attorney fees even on the bogus lawsuits of the ACLU. That's MY money the ACLU is wasting and I'm wondering why the ACLU shouldn't reimburse me.

>Could the BSA say, for example, no people of color allowed? No Protestants? I guess the question is, is there a line somewhere that BSA or any other private club can't cross?

Until a private group gets to a quasi-public status, it can discriminate for any reason it wants under the free association right. It can discriminate because it doesn't like the brand of your deoderant, your hair color, your skin color, etc. That makes sense because otherwise the state can force private citizens to meet with people who do not share their values/desires, etc. The people are not tools of the state, it's the other way around.

>Hey tortdog, what about the gay and atheist kids? Don't they count? It appears not.

Gay kids are allowed (and I kind of doubt that their sexuality at 8-years old has been explored anyway).

Children who refuse to abide by the Scouth Oath/Law have voluntary chosen to not join the BSA. The BSA isn't keeping them out, those kids are keeping themselves out. They chose. Choices have consequences.

>The Powell case in Oregon is largely over in-school recruiting; it's been dragging on for years. The recent ruling by the Oregon court of appeals sounds like the ACLU will win.

I'll bet you they won't win. Once it gets out of the kangaroo court to a justice who knows the law, the BSA will prevail. Do you think the ACLU should pay the attorney fees if the ACLU loses?

BSA SCHOOL RECRUITING CONSTITUTIONAL

>As discussed, Mt. Pleasant allowed Boy Scouts to distribute its flyers under the same terms and conditions *28 that applied equally to all other groups. There was nothing uniquely cooperative about **877 Boy Scouts' use of Mt. Pleasant's literature distribution system; Mt. Pleasant merely acquiesced in Boy Scouts' use of the neutral policy Mt. Pleasant implemented to balance free speech and free exercise rights. Acquiescence is not sufficient to establish state action. Blum, supra.

>Boy Scouts' school-hours visits resulted from Boy Scouts' impetus, as opposed to joint efforts between the group and Mt. Pleasant. Those visits showed no ostensible link to Boy Scouts' religious nature. Mt. Pleasant merely approved Boy Scouts' temporary nonreligious visit.

>Therefore, Boy Scouts' advertising and recruiting efforts did not make Mt. Pleasant a participant in Boy Scouts' exclusion of plaintiffs. Thus, because Mt. Pleasant was not jointly participating or sufficiently entwined with Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts was not a state actor.

So says a Michigan Court of Appeals in SCALISE v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and Mt. Pleasant Public Schools (Jan. 20, 2005).

[smiles, points to the scoreboard and walks away](This message has been edited by tortdog)

>There ARE a lot of BSA units in Texas chartered to public schools (Texas is the worst, with about 25% of all Packs chartered to schools).

Well, I'd rewrite that to say "Texas is the best, with about 25% of all Packs chartered to schools."

Hunt. I hear ya. Until I was on District Committee, I didn't even know that schools sponsored BSA units. I thought that almost all BSA units were sponsored by churches, with cities picking up some slack.

There is no downside to the BSA. The only harm I see is that a lot of kids who aren't active in a church because of parental decisions might never get the chance in the BSA except where schools are still allowing the BSA to recruit. Every young man in my church will get the benefits of the BSA, but that neighbor kid down the street might never get the chance if the ACLU keeps forcing the BSA into a corner. No one is hurt but some kids.

Meanwhile, got me thinking if we'll soon see the ACLU fighting to prevent the BSA from recruiting at schools, similar to the push by some law schools to prevent Army recruiters on campus (and currently in the Supreme Court). I'd be willing to bet that it's next on the ACLU's list.

Last note, have a look at this letter that pretty much sums up what I just wrote, only with far more class. Makes you proud to be part of the BSA:

http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/bsaletter2.pdf(This message has been edited by tortdog)

That's not good enough for the ACLU. It sues the government for continuing its historical relationship with the BSA, such as allowing the BSA to use its property for the National Jamboree.

Also, I have a feeling that the law has been construed to allow the ACLU to force state/city governments to pay ACLU legal fees for "discrimination" claims, while those governments to not receive attorney fees from the ACLU when the government wins. Supposedly this is why LA backed away from defending its city seal against the ACLU. Options were:

#1 Defend the historical seal that includes a cross:

Win and keep the seal but out $$$ in government attorney fees

Lose and lose the seal but out $$$ in government attorney fees AND $$$ in ACLU attorney fees

#2 Cave to the ACLU

Lose the seal but no attorney fees

How can you argue with CS's post. The prices for the BSA clothing are outrageous (though I've spent it and ask my boys' parents to spend it). The BSA should have clothing that everyone WANTS to own, with people buying BSA pants because they its better than they can find elsewhere (with a better price).

If for-profit companies can make good quality pants that others want, certainly a not-for-profit can figure out a way to do the same at the same price (or less).

(Wishing for the first time that I was in Canada...)

Someone earlier made the point that the ACLU is getting rich off its lawsuits. I found that somewhat hard to believe, personally knowing a few ACLU attorneys - none of whom are rich. However, I now see this person's point. The ACLU has strategically begun to attack the government to extract millions of dollars by litigating against its historically close relationship with the BSA.

Under the law, if the ACLU sues the United States for violation of civil rights and it wins, the United States must pay the attorney fees of the ACLU. Big bucks.

If the United States wins, then the court CANNOT award attorney fees to the government, so the ACLU is out little, while the government had to spend $$$ to defend its relationship with the BSA. Why does the ACLU win? It's attorneys work for peanuts, and other attorneys volunteer their time. If the ACLU wins, the ACLU charges full price for that attorney time and the taxpayer foots the bill. If the ACLU loses, the ACLU attorneys either write the bill off (no cost to the ACLU) or get paid their peanuts.

Either way, the taxpayer loses. Do you think the legislation should be changed to make it equal - such that the loser pays for the other side's attorney fees even if it is the government? This would make the ACLU consider twice before filing lawsuits - since it could be socked with a huge bill for the government's attorneys each time the ACLU loses a lawsuit (which it frequently does).

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl42/ch21/subchI/sec1988.html(This message has been edited by tortdog)

Maybe you are right, and the schools are not sponsoring the units, but it sure looks that way. I'll have to inquire next time I'm at the school. The packs are all over the place.

>What bothers me though, and I see it a lot, as I'm sure many of you do too, is people that are obese (or whatever) through their own vices. I think this is a really big problem with our society and as such is in scouting in the US too.

First, in jest. I could not stop smiling at the suggestion that obesity in society is a big problem.

In seriousness, though, if the adult leader is unable to do the things required of the boys, how is he able to lead? If we can't show the boys how to do a pull up, or how to swim a lap, how effective are we as a leader in the physical aspects of Scouting? I don't think you can factually argue you against that.

That being the case, there are people who may not meet the physical expectations of Scouting, but who surpass physically fit adult leaders in connection with kindness, being honest, showing duty go God, etc. Unfortunately for those with obesity, the physically fit aspect is visually obvious. We don't know if someone is not kind until we have seen the interaction (and sometimes people "hide" the fact that they are unkind until its convenient).

So...I suppose it's one aspect that an obese scouter needs to work on (and likely should NOT be complacent in remaining that way), but it might be easier for that obese scouter to be a better scouter than someone who is fit but unkind.

I apologize for responding when I'm not in your situation, but you wrote something that really moved me:

>I treadmill a few times a week and use the time to pray. One minute for for this..., one for him..., one for her...it is amazing how fast 20 minutes flies by.

What a terrific idea.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

NJ. I did not mean to demean Dale. I was taking the case to the extreme to make the point that apparently the BSA only cares about people engaged in perceived immoral behavior brought to the public's attention.

>I have never received anything approaching a reasonable answer... in fact, I can think of only one poster who has even attempted an answer, and the answer didn't make any sense.

I'm going to try, but I am sure you know as well as I that my answer would mean little since I am not in the BSA's mind.

>Adultery, heterosexual cohabitation, a conviction for driving while intoxicated (especially one in the distant past) come quickly to mind. You can be removed by your council for these things, in some councils you probably would be, but in some you might not be.

So it appears these are on a case by case basis, but that councils DO remove leaders for bad conduct other than merely being a public gay (meaning, a person who is gay and engages in some form of public activities that tells society that he is gay).

>By the way, you give the examples of lie, cheat and steal... I think those would depend on whether the person has been convicted of a crime involving lying, cheating and/or stealing. If so, national probably would step in and remove the person.

I would certainly hope so.

>Being a convicted criminal, especially a recently convicted criminal, is on the very short list of things that will get you automatically removed by national.

Okay, I did not know that, but it certainly make sense. But let me ask you this, what about being a criminal for a crime that is not immoral, for example in Texas until recently it was a crime to engage in sodomy. If you violate the law against sodomy but you view that conduct as moral, would the BSA have removed you?

>One of the others is being (leaving aside any technical or legal language) a child molester, and if it is done in the BSA context and reported to national, I doubt if it matters whether the person has been convicted or not. The third and fourth items on the list would be being an avowed atheist and being openly gay.

Molester makes sense, to protect the youth. I understand the first one as you must swear a duty to God. On the last is where the BSA policy seems somewhat odd, but you seem to be providing information to support that the BSA is consistent. Already you have shown that public crimes of immorality (convicted for breaking the law) constitute cause for removal. The only non-law breaking behavior that also constitutes cause (other than atheism) would be a gay public figure. I think the reason the BSA likely has a firm policy against this now is because it was pushed to the brink by the ACLU, and given a choice between allowing a gay public figure to also be a Scout leader or removing that man it was forced to choose with what it viewed as the moral choice.

Now, why doesn't the BSA have a Supreme Court decision with the ACLU backing a child molestor, an adulterer, or a porn producer who also serves as a Scout leader? I think it's just reality of facts, that the ACLU would not take that position, and there is no adultery lobby, porn lobby or even molestor lobby fighting for the rights of adulterers, porn producers or molestors to be Scout leaders.

In other words, I think the reason there is a sharp line with gay leaders is because the gay lobby made it so.

Thoughts?

Maybe people who don't let scouts drive at 12 do not trust the boys enough to let them lead.

Maybe someone ought to tell our local schools here in Houston that they can't sponsor Cub packs as is done currently. They are booming and using the school's facilities.

Fancy that Congress can open in prayer but some think it should be illegal for schools to sponsor a group that believes in duty to God and country.

Well, I wrote:

>If you start to stand up and scream "I am gay!" then the BSA says you are out. Maybe the BSA will never send out a secret squad to determine our private sins, but if a Scouter starts producing pornographic movies while proclaiming he is a BSA leader, the BSA would act to remove him.

In other words, the BSA doesn't know if people are gay unless they stand up and scream it (as did Dale). Repeating myself, perhaps the BSA WOULD kick a leader out if he also proclaimed himself to be a porn producer, or expanding, was publicly found to be a thief, etc.