Membership Guidelines for Secular Student Alliance

[TAHAWK 1420]

There is no need to be crude, even when factually correct.

 

Private groups, as groups, have the constitutional right to include and exclude whomever they wish.

 

OT but related I think, I think I saw on the Internet (with all attendant risks) that judges in California, and other states, cannot belong to BSA because it discriminates against atheists. and GLBT folk. By parity of reasoning, how can they belong to the Catholic Church - or to any church except the Buddhists?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Because the California Code of Judicial Ethics contains exceptions; there's an exception for religion, and one that was carved out for the Boy Scouts a few years ago.

 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

[TAHAWK 1420]

"Reasoning"?

[LeCastor 641]

TANGENT: The talk about public schools and not being able to charter BSA Troops made think of a story close to home. The Pack with which my Troop is affiliated was booted from a long-standing relationship with a public elementary school in the neighborhood. The way in which they lost their charter is a bit ironic, though. The Cubmaster and Pack Committee Chair went to a PTA meeting to seek advice on how to recruit new Cubs to the Pack and during the meeting several parents expressed complete ignorance of the fact that they--the PTA--were the chartering organization! The Pack reps were immediately given notice that they had until the charter ran out to find a new home after 75 years at that school.

 

Luckily for the Pack, our chartering org--a Methodist church--allowed the Pack to be chartered there, too. I totally get the reasoning behind the PTA's refusal to charter the Pack but the sting is nonetheless real. The numbers have dwindled significantly since the Pack left the school and the future is very murky.

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Now here's a thought from an outsider.

 

Why does BSA need chartering organisations? Why can't it simply establish troops, packs and units simply as part of itself, much like they do in the UK.

 

As an outsider looking in it sometimes seems that the whole structure is more trouble than it's worth.

[Huzzar 39]

It's not the structure that's the problem, Girl Scouts USA is setup as you suggest and has plenty of issues too.

[skeptic 997]

The problem is simply a society that thinks egocentricity is a good thing, and that cannot simply allow others to live their lives the way they wish. For some reason a lot of people think equal only applies to what they agree with. To me, they are just insecure within themselves; otherwise they would simply shrug and go on with their own lives. JMO of course:rolleyes:

[walk in the woods 888]

The Cubmaster and Pack Committee Chair went to a PTA meeting to seek advice on how to recruit new Cubs to the Pack and during the meeting several parents expressed complete ignorance of the fact that they--the PTA--were the chartering organization! The Pack reps were immediately given notice that they had until the charter ran out to find a new home after 75 years at that school.

 

so the PTA isn't actually the school as I understand it around here. So it would seem to me that particular PTA chose to boot the pack based on the type of people and organizations they choose to associate with........Just saying.

[AZMike 173]

Because the California Code of Judicial Ethics contains exceptions; there's an exception for religion' date=' and one that was carved out for the Boy Scouts a few years ago.[/size']

 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

 

Merlyn, I don't see any exception for the Boy Scouts in the link you posted. Is there an exception for the BSA now, or not?

 

There are any number of other private organizations that judges cannot belong to under these standards:

1. Absent such factors, an organization is
   
2. 38 generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
   

 

 

One could of course argue that the BSA does not "arbitrarily" exclude atheists from membership, as the existing standards are clearly meant to enhance and inculcate a belief in a Supreme Being - it's not like atheists were arbitrarily chosen for exclusion and, say, the Quakers just dodged the bullet of exclusion by sheer chance. The BSA also excludes LAGABATAs as leaders due to legitimate concerns over youth safety - whether one agrees with them or not, the BSA has a legitimate interest in youth protection, and the BSA did not "arbitrarily" exclude them. They have stated reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

 

Under these administrative standards, no judge could be a Mason, as their membership standards require that you:

• Be a man.
  
• Have a sound reputation, and be well-recommended by your peers.
  
• In most freemasonry jurisdictions, you must believe in a Supreme Being, regardless of your religion.
  
• Be over the age of 21 years.
  

Like the BSA, they are an organization that is Theist in intent, and thus their standards for membership are not arbitrary.. And I have met several judges in the California court system who are freemasons, based on their rings and tie clasps. I suspect that most judges will do as they please on this issue as they do with the BSA.

 

[AZMike 173]

My bad - I see this issue is under review:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/cali...ith-boy-scouts

 

Per the article, California has an exception for BSA youth leaders that they want to remove. I don't think it is really an atheist issue, Merlyn.

 

If the standards are rewritten, the new societally-approved code will also bar judges from holding commissions in the military reserves or National Guard, as the miltary still discriminates against women in certain specialties:

 

The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.

 

As every judge is a lawyer, I would imagine the fights over requiring judges to resign from the BSA, the masons, or lose their service pensions/ranks will stretch out over the next three millennia...

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The BSA also excludes LAGABATAs as leaders due to legitimate concerns over youth safety

 

The BSA has never argued that in court. Whenever they are forced to make a statement in a court of law, they always say it's due to not wanting them as role models.

 

If the standards are rewritten' date=' the new societally-approved code will also bar judges from holding commissions in the military reserves or National Guard,[/quote']

This canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization or an official military organization of the United States.

[AZMike 173]

 

The BSA has never argued that in court. Whenever they are forced to make a statement in a court of law, they always say it's due to not wanting them as role models.

 

 

 

Fair enough, that's a legitimate argument as well.

 

On the last quote, see my previous post: this is from the draft statement that will render the cite you gave inoperative, if they have their way: The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.