Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[eolesen 10]

I actually don't believe that, if the BSA were to changes its policy on Homosexuality, the Catholic Church in America would necessarily change its support of scouting in a significant way.

 

I'm not so sure that the Catholic Church is the only concern -- they're still a large contingent, but they're not the largest CO who has spoken out against changing the policy.

 

Based on a 2004 presentation, the top four chartering organizations for BSA are:

 

1) LDS Church, 401,000 Youth

2) United Methodist Church, 390,000 Youth

3) PTA/PTO/Public/Private Schools 370,000 Youth

4) Catholic Church 325,000 Youth

 

Following that, you have PTA/PTO's, several other Protestant churches, and other groups such as the Masons, VFW/American Legion, and community groups like the Lions' Clubs.

 

If anyone has a more current or inclusive list, I'd love to see it...

 

Both the UMC and LDS have views in alignment with the BSA on homosexuality, as do most of the major Protestant religions. If they believe that scripture is the Word of God, then it's pretty hard to tell them they have to adopt a position that goes entirely against that of God.

 

The LDS has gone public on their stance -- they'll no longer charter BSA units. That's a 30% loss in terms of units, 13% in terms of members, and something around 40-50% of FOS contributions. While some folks I know would welcome the departure of the LDS's interpretations of Scouting, you can't ignore the imact that it could have on the organization as a whole.

 

I'm not so sure about the Catholic Church, UMC or other major CO's, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that several had already done so privately.

 

 

Back to the topic...

 

When San Diego was faced with kicking BSA out of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island a few years ago, the ACLU filed a brief with the court SUPPORTING the BSA (go figure...). They made a case that the below-market lease San Diego was extending to the Scouts was more than offset by facility improvements and maintenance costs. ACLU also made a case that the only likely candidates to occupying either facility were other non-profits, so it would be difficult to justify market-rate leases when the facility had limited commercial appeal.

 

So the questions in my mind aren't whether or not the City should offer a reduced rate to the BSA or any other not-for-profit, but whether or not the proposed lease is comparable to the cost BSA has incurred maintaining the facility, and whether or not there's someone else likely to be able to occupy the facility at rates comparable to what is being extended to BSA or who is able to assume the cost of maintenance/upkeep.

 

If the cost of kicking them out on principle winds up costing the PHL taxpayers more, it's the wrong decision from a fiscal standpoint.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

eolesen writes:

When San Diego was faced with kicking BSA out of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island a few years ago, the ACLU filed a brief with the court SUPPORTING the BSA (go figure...).

 

No they didn't. The ACLU of San Diego has been litigating against the BSA's special lease, e.g.:

http://www.aclusandiego.org/issues_item.php?cat_id_sel=001&sub_cat_sel=000011&article_id=000065

 

They made a case that the below-market lease San Diego was extending to the Scouts was more than offset by facility improvements and maintenance costs.

 

I doubt any ACLU would argue that civil rights take a back seat to park improvements. Maybe you're thinking of the ACRU, which is only in favor of some people having civil rights.

 

If the cost of kicking them out on principle winds up costing the PHL taxpayers more, it's the wrong decision from a fiscal standpoint.

 

Civil rights are not for sale. Are you saying discrimination is OK if it's profitable?

 

By the way, a more current list than your 2004 list would no longer have public schools.

[BrentAllen 10]

As of 12/31/06, membership is up, not down.

Membership: 2005 - 4,586,831; 2006 - 4,619,730

 

Number of units is basically flat.

Cub Units/Elementary: 2005 - 54,663; 2006 - 54,552

 

Total units:

2005 - 138,882; 2006 - 137,884

 

Our Pack was one of those "casualties" of the ACLU public schools nonsense. We had the PTA president sign the forms instead of the principal and presto! Our Pack has grown from around 70 boys 3 years ago to 140 now. Yeah, we are floundering...

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The number of units is down 0.2%, while membership is up 0.7%, so I'd say they're both basically flat.

 

And yes, I know you consider the rights of atheist students to be "nonsense", but it's a good deal more serious than that. Why do you think public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheists, anyway?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Whoops, I just noticed you used the combined membership of scouting and Learning for Life. L4L is up, but scouting is down.

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/reports/2006/12memsummary.html

2005: 2,938,698

2006: 2,868,963

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/reports/2006/13lflsummary.html

2005: 1,648,133

2006: 1,750,767

 

Also, and I've pointed this out before, "special needs" appears to be "special needs" scouts, and they're counted under L4L, not traditional scouting. So it appears either special needs scouts aren't counted as real scouts, or special needs scouts can be gays and/or atheists.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Why do you think public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheists, anyway?"

 

Because I don't see that a public school chartering a Pack, which operates outside of school hours, is part of the public school program. I must have missed the court ruling that stated public school Cub Scout Pack charters were discriminatory - please point me to that specific case and ruling.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You don't see a program run by a public school as a public school program? Do you think they could have a baseball team that wouldn't let Jewish kids join? Hey, it's after school hours so that makes it OK, right?

 

And you seem to suddenly like court cites for some reason. Tell you what, as soon as any public school anywhere tries to defend chartering a cub scout pack anywhere in the US, we'll get a court ruling. Up to now, no public school has even attempted to defend chartering a pack, because it's such an obvious violation.

[BrentAllen 10]

So, there is no court ruling, right?

 

Schools have FCA clubs and other similar type organizations. I don't see a difference between those type clubs and a Cub Scout Pack.

 

Why would a public school spend a small fortune to go to court when all they need to do is get a different person to sign the forms? I think that is what is called a wise use of resources.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

There's no court ruling because no public school will even begin to defend the practice.

 

And no, no public schools "own and operate" a christian organization like FCA; FCA is also a private organization, but public schools don't own & operate them, nor do they select the leadership for them, like they would for a cub scout pack.

 

By the way, you didn't answer my question on whether you think a public school could run a baseball team that excludes Jews. Do you think a public school could have a rule saying Jewish kids couldn't play on their after-school ball team?

[Gold Winger 9]

It's interesting how you some discrimination is okay to the liberals but other forms aren't.

 

Last year it was on the news about a public school program for blacks only. Yessir. The advisors said outright that only blacks were allowed to attend because it was a time for them to discuss their problems without "outsiders" listening. School facilities during the school day and run by black teachers. Strangely there were no complaints.

[evmori 11]

Atheists don't have special right. Neither do Christians. But it seems atheists think they do. I wonder how many atheists don't work on Christmas or Easter or any other religious holiday?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen 10]

A school baseball team is much, much different from a Scout group. The baseball team would wear uniforms with the school name on it, and would represent the school in competition against other schools. The baseball team or any other team representing the school, wearing the school name, should not be allowed to discriminate.

 

A Scout unit wears a Scout uniform - they are a unit of the BSA. The official uniform does not contain anything that denotes they belong to the school. They do not compete against other units while representing the school. In most cases, the CO doesn't even choose the leadership, they just sign off on them. The rest of the issues - ownership, etc. - are just semantics.

 

Without a court ruling, it's all just opinions. You have yours, I have mine. And we have a Pack that meets at the school just the same as when the principal signed the papers.

[Hunt 11]

"There's no court ruling because no public school will even begin to defend the practice."

 

Oh, I suspect one could be found. But BSA chose not to take that path. The result has been a move to private CORs with little effect on actual scouts and units.

 

As for what would happen if BSA allowed CORs to decide whether to permit gay or atheist members: I don't think the United Methodist Church would stop chartering units. Rather, the controversy within the church would be whether to allow individual congregations to allow gay leaders. As for LDS, obviously they wouldn't allow gay leaders, but would they really sever all ties just because other units would be allowed to make this change? The key to bringing this about, if BSA ever decides to do so, is to market it as a new "option" plan--in fact, the best thing would probably be headlines that say, "Gays and Atheists Still Barred from Many BSA Units."

 

By the way, what does membership growth or decline have to do with any of this? Shouldn't BSA do what's right whatever the effect on membership might be, whichever side of this issue you might be on?

[onehouraweekmy 10]

I'm amused by the use of the word "discrimination" as a weapon that's supposed to shut down debate, e.g., "Why should someone support a policy that discriminates against homosexuals/atheists?"

 

It's really an abuse of language. We all discriminate; the only question is whether the discrimination is well-founded or not. For instance, society generally agrees that discriminating against someone solely because of their skin color is wrong. We feel strongly enough about that as a society that we have made such discrimination illegal in many contexts.

 

Other types of discrimination, however, are healthy. For instance, we discriminate against convicted felons in many ways. They cannot vote in many states, they cannot possess firearms, they suffer employment difficulties. Sexual offenders have to register their names with the state in many states, and the public can find out where they reside.

 

Now look at scouting. The GSUSA discriminates against males, by restriciting youth membership to girls. The BSA likewise discriminates against girls by excluding them from being youth members. The BSA also espouses the belief that it is a good and wholesome thing for youth to profess belief in a deity. They also embrace the notion held universally by society in the Western world for at least 2,000 years that homosexuality is not compatible with high moral aspirations. So the BSA discriminates by excluding atheists and open, active, homosexuals. They also discriminate against girls and against those under age 11 and over age 18.

 

As a private organization, BSA is and ought to be entirely free to discriminate in these way. In sum, EVERY organization "discriminates;" every organization is ordered to certain goals and ends and excludes those whose presence is not compatible with those ends. Seems to me as long as those goals and ends are not inherently irrational (like skin color discrimation would be), society should embrace a diversity of such organizations rather than trying to force them to comply with a narrow and ever-changing set of politically correct directives.

 

So let's not use the word "discrimination" as a magical incantation that's supposed to immediately shut down discussion. To say there is discrimination is only to say that there is an organization defining itself and its mission.

 

Instead of shouting "discrimination," tell us why the BSA should not be allowed to define itself (in part) as a generally (and very vaguely) theistic organization that does not welcome open and practicing homosexuals into its boys' campsites?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

onehouraweekmy, you're the one equivocating on the word "discriminate"; I'm using it in the context of illegal discrimination, such as a public school discriminating against atheists. Public schools can discriminate in many ways (age, for example) but they can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

Brent, your handwaving arguments don't make religious discrimination by a public school legal. There's no court cite saying it's OK if people don't wear uniforms with the school's name on it. Or do you think it's legal if the school's ball team doesn't use uniforms? My schools didn't, we just played baseball in our street clothes, and we didn't compete with other schools. We just played baseball. Now, apparently, such a ball team could exclude Jews in your view, right? All your objections are absent, so that makes it OK, right?

 

Gold Winger, strangely enough, I can find objections to black-only schools that you can't seem to find.