More on Philadelphia

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I was under the impression that the law Philadelphia was refusing to violate was based on our Constitution. But I do not see the humor in that - do we not encourage all scouts to obey the law? Rather, I would say that if Philadelphia did NOT obey the law, it would be hypocritical, even criminal.

Gern has been fairly consistent in proposing 'local option' as a way to avoid these situations in the future and I tend to agree. However, I think resistance to this at the National level is based on the fact that 'local option' would effectively end CONTROL at the National level.

[Beavah]

Yah, pack, I'm not opposed to "local option", eh? Seems fairly sensible, we have it anyway for da most part. But da BSA is a democracy of sorts, and da majority aren't comfortable with local option.... sorta like lots of folks on da forums don't like "local option" for things as small as adding a uniform patch or decidin' who should be an MBC. .

 

But this is a different question, eh? Not a constitutional question, a local law question. How should da government interact with its citizens of faith who are engaged in activities that benefit the public?

 

The "yeh have to benefit ALL of da public" is just poppycock. Around here, most rural public school districts do not provide services to severely handicapped kids, eh? They refuse. Services are provided by the tri-county district. Does that mean that public school districts shouldn't receive tax dollars?

 

In our state, we have affirmative action in a bunch of hirin', and many local governments have a preference for local vendors. Many public college scholarships are only available to certain individuals, not everybody.

 

Governments discriminate and restrict services to people all da time, eh?

 

So da notion that yeh have to provide a service to everybody to merit tax dollars is poppycock. If some private agency can handle after-school and educational supplement programming for 80,000 kids in exchange for a token rent on a building they built and maintain, that's 80,000 less kids that have to be served by tax dollars. Great deal.

 

Instead, they're goin' to charge rent, which means they have to maintain the building. So they make maybe 50K per year after expenses. But now either the city is goin' to provide programming for 80,000 kids for $50K per year, or they're goin' to cut services to kids.

 

Is that in the public interest?

 

All kinds of nitwits who stand on self-righteous "principle" like a rebellious teenager not realizing how much damage they do to the health of a community makin' a mountain out of a molehill. They should grow up.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, we can argue the differences between legal and illegal discrimination but that is not what this is about.

The fact is, this is the law. Period. You and others may not like it. And it may or may not be more costly to the public in the end - I do not know...that is speculative.

But the law is the law. BSA directly and intentionally has a policy that will cause Philadelphia to break the law if the status quo continues. That is not a molehill. Philadelphia is within its rights to take this action, according to the lease, and is following the law. Whining and messing in our pants over this will not change these facts.

BSA is still free to offer the services. They can either chum up the rent or find new digs. Time to grow up indeed.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Packsaddle, the exact same majority of city council that can vote the rent on the boy scouts can vote to change the law in Philadelphia.

 

Da "law" is just a decision by a majority of councilmen either way.

 

Which gets us back to "What is in the best interest of the public?". That's the purpose of law, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, In that case the solution is simple. The majority of voters should raise hell (yes I know it's a myth), kick the bums out and get their new representatives to change the law. See how far that gets them. Otherwise I guess we'll just have to endure a bunch of whiners.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I almost never get everything I want. I'd love to see scouting available to ALL boys. BSA won't allow that. I live with it now... I can continue to live with it.

But the law is the law. If BSA threw its gargantuan weight into a Herculean lobbying effort and demonstrated for all the world BSA's supremacy in intellect and morality, I'm sure the law would be changed forthwith. And Philadelphia would be required to follow it.

Tell you what...I won't hold my breath.

[Beavah]

They did pretty good with the Boy Scouts Equal Access Act for schools, eh? Didn't even really need to hold your breath, as quick as that sailed through on bipartisan majorities.

 

But I don't think yeh really want to make a claim that "following the law" is the same thing as "doing what's right", do yeh?

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

They did pretty good with the Boy Scouts Equal Access Act for schools, eh?

 

How so? It outlawed what was already illegal (public schools can't refuse use of their facilities just because school officials don't like the group's message). It didn't do anything. It's like passing a law that says it's illegal to murder a boy scout -- it's something politicians can point to, to show they support the boy scouts, even though it's redundant.

[scoutmomma]

My first post here, and how ironic that it's about an issue that involves my home council.

I'd just like to point out that the commentary that Beavah posted by Hans Zeiger did not include the fact (for those who don't know, as I didn't), that Mr. Zieger is not a local resident commenting on the situation. The bio footnoted to the column reads as follows: Hans Zeiger, an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster in Puyallup, Wash., is spokesman for the Scouting Legal Defense Fund, a project of the American Civil Rights Union in Arlington, Va. He is the author of the 2005 book "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America."

Personally, I would have found the column more persuasive if it had been written by a local resident rather than someone so far removed from the local situation. I will add that I am not a disinterested party in this: I'm Committee Chair for my son's Troop.

Way way back near the beginning of the original thread that this spun off from, someone wrote: "I think it is a shame that the BSA is willing to throw an entire Council under the bus lest their religious mega-sponsors get pissed off and withdraw support."

I can speak to this point because in my opinion, BSA threw this Council under the bus four years ago.

In 2003, Cradle of Liberty Council adopted a really-and-for-true, honest-to-goodness non-discrimination policy. CoL adopted this policy in response to the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania's request that they do so or face being dropped from the local UW campaign. Money talks: CoL adopted a non-discrimination policy.

Then a few days later, CoL rescinded the policy. Why? Money talks: BSA threatened to pull their charter if they didn't.

Money doesn't always talk: United Way of SEPA no longer provides any funding to Cradle of Liberty Council.

As far as I'm concerned, BSA started this fire, you'll pardon the expression, not the City of Philadelphia.

As for someone's comment about Cradle of Liberty having to look for new digs: they don't have to: CoL has another home in the Firestone Center in Valley Forge, PA. (Council has two headquarters, having been formed from the merger of the former Philadelphia and Valley Forge councils.)

In my opinion, CoL should pay the increased rent. It can't have it both ways: be a private organization that can exclude gays and atheists (and agnostics, too, as I understand it), and then turn around and ask the City of Philadelphia to risk losing federal funding of its own by providing this space to BSA for such a token rent. The City is trying to find a way to make this work and not violate its own non-discrimination policy. The fact that they've come up with the higher rent rather than just evict CoL from the Marks building is proof of that. The City followed the terms of the lease, which states that either side can end the lease with one year's notice to the other side. Philadelphia gave notice to CoL a year ago in July, so would be within its rights to throw the Scouts out now, but it's not doing that, offering the increased rent as an alternative.

Since 2003, CoL has lost many Scouts and parents over this issue, which continue to affect Council fundraising efforts and, in some cases, membership efforts. Just for one example, I know of a troop in Council that is struggling now with finding new membership because it lost its entire supporting pack over this when the pack leaders all resigned after CoL rescinded the non-discrimination policy. There is a parent of a Scout in my son's Troop who has declined an invitation to become a registered committee member because of BSA's gay/atheist policy. There are parents in this Troop who will not donate to Friends of Scouting because of that same policy, but generously support the Troop. I've talked to District Execs about this (there have been several in the last four years -- a lot of turnover at the Council level), and they've all acknowledged that it's a problem throughout Council but their hands are tied because they can't offer a local option on this policy. It's the elephant in the living room: it's always there but no one likes to talk about it.

I don't see this changing any time soon. But anyone who thinks the City of Philadelphia "sprung" this on Cradle of Liberty Council is mistaken. This has been going on for years.

Scoutmomma

[packsaddle]

Welcome to the forums Scoutmomma. I KNEW I had heard (read) Zeiger's name before. I just couldn't remember where. Thanks for the reminder. It is good to read a local perspective on this from someone who knows more local detail. Thanks.