Loss of Charter

[packsaddle 753]

Hunt, I agree. A PTA (or PTO, whatever) would be a weak CO. For what it's worth, our CO has also had discussions about the BSA policy on gays. But the homophobes are in the majority and I suspect will remain that way. It is an increasingly divisive issue, though, and no one in the CO is happy about having to (as my grandmother used to say) "stir that turd".

[CubsRgr8 10]

Another possibility is to form a non-profit corporation ie "XYZ School Friends of Scouting", which works okay for the units at my neighborhood public school. This non-profit corporations is the CO for both a pack and a troop. They are allowed access to school facilities, just like any other group (BTW, isn't there a law to the affect?), although the leaders have to store equipment at their homes. True, it's not the best setup, but since leaders tend to stay in place for 5-6 years at a time, the turnover isn't a big problem. I wonder if Merlyn has a problem with this arrangement.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Oh, that's legal, but I'd still feel free to criticize them as a group, just as I would a group of parents who got together to sponsor a youth group that excludes Jews. It's hardly an admirable thing to do, much like the private, whites-only proms that sprung up after schools couldn't legally sponsor segregated proms.

[Hunt 11]

What exactly would you be criticizing, Merlyn? Would you criticize a Catholic youth group that excluded non-Catholics, or a Jewish group that excluded non-Jews? Would you criticize an Elvis Presley fan club that excludes people who don't like Elvis? How about an Asian-American Students' Association that excludes non-Asians? Once the government entanglements are eliminated, isn't BSA just a religious group that excludes people who aren't religious?

 

Let me suggest a distinction between these examples, including BSA, and something like the whites-only proms you mention. An Elvis fan club is designed to include a group of people with a common trait that binds them together--it is not primarily designed to exclude a disliked group. The religious aspect of BSA scouting has been there from the beginning, and it was always part of what it meant to be a scout. It is not designed to exclude atheists because atheists are disliked, but because the organization is designed for religious people. (Perhaps a different argument could be made about BSA's exclusion of openly gay leaders.)

 

I guess the difference is that Scouting has a lot of elements, and the religious one is only one of them. Plenty of people can see that the other elements would be good for non-religious people, so they don't like it that non-religious people are excluded. But I submit that this isn't a difference in principle, but only in degree, from criticizing, say, Campus Crusade for Christ because you have to be a Christian to go to their fun weekend retreats (actually, they'd probably let you go in order to proselytize you, but you get my point).

 

To put it another way, once you recognize a freedom of association, what is a fair reason to criticize a group's decision to associate together to the exclusion of others? It seems to me that you should only criticize them if the exclusion is based on animus--and I don't think BSA's religious element is based on animus.

[Greying Beaver 10]

Lost your charter? Try this: Have the parents of the boys in the unit declare themselves to be a "Group of Citizens" and have the unit chartered to the parents of the boys in the unit. Check with your DE to see if that is still possible. It has been in the past. The only problem, then, is finding a place to meet.

Also, check with Masonic Lodges and/or the Shriners. The American Legion sounds like a good move. They usually have meeting facilities.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

What exactly would you be criticizing, Merlyn? Would you criticize a Catholic youth group that excluded non-Catholics, or a Jewish group that excluded non-Jew?

 

No, but how about a group that allows everyone EXCEPT Jews, or EXCEPT Catholics?

 

Once the government entanglements are eliminated, isn't BSA just a religious group that excludes people who aren't religious?

 

They also denegrate atheists.

 

To put it another way, once you recognize a freedom of association, what is a fair reason to criticize a group's decision to associate together to the exclusion of others?

 

Freedom of association doesn't include freedom from criticism, and the BSA has plenty to criticize. For example, their wholly-owned subsidiary Learning for Life teaches ethics to atheist students - how can LFL, owned by an organization that had to be threatened with lawsuits before ending their practice of having public schools discriminate against atheists on their behalf, and which still denegrates atheists, pretend to teach ETHICS to atheists?

[evmori 11]

Great post Hunt!

 

Merlyn,

Spin it anyway you want but your comparisons are lame. They don't even apply!

 

There is not difference to a group being exclusive or excluding another group. And neither are discriminating.

 

Go pick on the Girl Scouts or DAR!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[stlscouter 10]

Merlyn says "Freedom of association doesn't include freedom from criticism, and the BSA has plenty to criticize. For example, their wholly-owned subsidiary Learning for Life teaches ethics to atheist students - how can LFL, owned by an organization that had to be threatened with lawsuits before ending their practice of having public schools discriminate against atheists on their behalf, and which still denegrates atheists, pretend to teach ETHICS to atheists?"

 

I believe the DRP states a positive..believe in a higher power-NOT the negative... "Atheists need NOT apply". That denigrates no one.

 

Denigration is not the same as discriminating. For a person who amasses data bases and shares them (with glee, appearently) with groups who seek to denigrate the BSA and chooses not to get into the really tough business of teaching ethics to youth-I would ask can you teach ethics to an atheist?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

stlscouter writes:

I believe the DRP states a positive..believe in a higher power-NOT the negative... "Atheists need NOT apply". That denigrates no one.

 

The DRP states that only theist members can be "the best kinds of citizens".

 

For a person who amasses data bases and shares them (with glee, appearently) with groups who seek to denigrate the BSA and chooses not to get into the really tough business of teaching ethics to youth-I would ask can you teach ethics to an atheist?

 

Sure - don't you think it was unethical of the BSA to have public schools run their "no atheists allowed" private clubs for decades? Public schools can't legally do that, but the BSA didn't care. I actually did something to stop it. I'd say that stopping religious discrimination by thousands of public schools is very ethical.

[stlscouter 10]

Never-saw a "NO atheists allowed" sign anywhere at any scout function.

 

Collusion for the purpose of denigrating the BSA out of existence is unethical.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

stlscouter writes:

Never-saw a "NO atheists allowed" sign anywhere at any scout function.

 

So what? They don't allow atheists to join - it's a "no atheists allowed" private group. Public schools can't sponsor such religious discrimination.

[johndaigler 10]

Merlyn, please ignore the posters playing "gotcha" and go back to Hunt for a minute. Read Hunt carefully and thoughtfully. I think you were a bit hasty - maybe falling into the "gotcha" game yourself - and Hunt deserves more thought and a more thoughtful answer.

 

 

jd

[OldGreyEagle 5]

JD, its not a question of whether or not the BSA can exclude gays and Atheists its whether or not a governmental unit can sponsor a BSA unit.

 

Of course an Elvis club can restrict its membership only to Elvis (he was the King you know) Fans, but if the Elvis club was owned and operated by the local township which spent tax money on the adoration of Elvis and did not allow Buddy Holly fans to participate, or Jiles Perry Richardson fans to sock hop to tax payor paid for music, food and drinks, then there would be a problem.

 

Its not about a privaate club's access to public facilities, its having the public facility own and operate a private club.

 

A small distinction, but very important

[evmori 11]

Define ethical, Merlyn. Then after you define ethical, take a look at your own life & see if it fits the definition.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[johndaigler 10]

Thanks, OGE, I get that. But Hunt turned the discussion in slightly new direction, and I thought Merlyn gave a bit of a corpspeak answer. And amidst the usual piling on in both directions I didn't want Hunt's thoughtfulness to be lost.

 

Ed, please challenge words not people.

 

 

jd