Merlyn_LeRoy

fgoodwin writes: BSA has been publicly criticized for its position of not admitting younger girls -- but those same critics don't say anything about GSUSA's opposition to BSA admitting younger girls. I just wonder why GSUSA is let off the hook by those who complain about BSA? I think some actual examples would help. Plus, there's the obvious difference that the BSA can change the BSA's policies, while the GSUSA can't change the BSA's policies.

Gonzo1, I care because when public schools charter BSA units, the school (a government agency) is unlawfully discriminating against atheist students by running a private club that excludes them. The first amendment prohibits federal, state, and local governments from running private clubs that have religious requirements for membership, like a cub scout pack. If thousands of public schools ran private clubs that allowed everyone except Methodists to join, and the club's bylaws said only non-Methodists could be the best kinds of citizens, you might understand. But I doubt it.

nldscout, the Holiday Shore Fire Dept. was created by referendum, is supported by tax money, and is listed in the "Legislators Guide to Local Governments in Illinois". More from the Legislator's Guide: "Local governments are key partners in our intergovernmental system. They maintain and enhance the quality of life of Illinois residents by providing vital public services. Police, fire, sewer, water, emergency, and road services are among the most visible, but by no means the only services they provide." "This guide covers special districts, the most numerous and least understood of all local governments." "Special Districts differ from general-purpose governments such as counties and municipalities in that they provide a single service or group of services. The functions they undertake range from basic services such as fire protection and water supply to more quality-of-life enhancing services like historic preservation and mosquito abatement." Special Districts are local governments. The Holiday Shores Fire Protection District is a Special District. It's listed with all the other Special Districts, in a government publication that exhaustively lists all these Illinois Special Districts, and which is only about Special Districts. It's quite obviously a government agency. Eamonn; no problemo.

Well, the BSA's websites still report Pack and Troop 817 as existing, though I haven't checked with the Three Fires Council, so it's possible the BSA's online data is out of date. Have you contacted them? And I don't know why you say the Holiday Shores Fire Department isn't a government agency: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/SpecialDistricts.pdf Legislators Guide to Local Governments in Illinois ... This lists the Holiday Shores Fire Protection District under "Fire Protection Districts"; these districts are "governed by boards of trustees and may levy property taxes and issue bonds" and are created by referendum. The firefighters are volunteers, but the fire department is still a government agency. The fire chief is also listed as an Illinois public official here: http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/pod/pod2004/WebPOD2004-MadCo.pdf

Eamonn, what would/should have happened if, say, a deaf kid who's an atheist wanted to join that special needs pack? Like I said, it looks like about 90-95% of government charters have been re-chartered, but since that figure was about 9,000 at the start of 2005, that still leaves a few hundred. I've been looking at Illinois first, and Pack 817 & Troop 817 in Glen Ellyn still appear to be chartered by Philip J Rock Center and School, which is a public school. There are a few chartered by Fire Depts, like Pack 3220 by Holiday Shores Fire Dept in Edwardsville. And yes, I'm not counting charter partners that say "friends of xxx school" or "xxx fire dept auxiliary" and such.

There was a whole thread about this back when the lawsuit was filed, so I thought people might want to know what happened. As to your second question, my answer is "it depends".(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

There still appear to be a few hundred units still chartered to public schools, fire departments, etc. I'd say roughly 90-95% have been rechartered.

You're the one claiming I have a "beef". I've said since the Dale decision that the BSA is a private organization, which is why public schools have no business chartering packs.

From the BSA's legal website; no media coverage that I could find yet: http://www.bsalegal.org/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=52 ... Boy Scouts of America announced today that a federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the parents of an autistic boy who alleged that their sons Boy Scout Troop violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by asking the boys father to attend summer camp with his son. ... Last Monday, the court heard the Boy Scouts motion to dismiss the case. Boy Scouts argued that it is a private membership organization and does not fall in the category of place of public accommodation regulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge agreed with that position and dismissed the case in an order issued on Friday, October 27. ...

Packsaddle, I don't know if it's possible to overestimate the sheer ignorance of whoever makes decisions in the BSA. They went to court to kick out atheists even as public schools were their largest chartering partner, and apparently didn't see a problem. They insist they are "absolutely nonsectarian" regarding religion, yet the long form of the DRP has "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship", which clearly spells out some attributes that this god must have, even though not all religions would agree with this. And then they backtrack on the DRP, by saying a scout's god can be a rock or a tree or a stream (I guess it's OK as long as that rock is also the ruling and leading power in the universe). About the only thing that's clear is that these rules were made by a committee that flunked at camels.

Trevorum writes: The point being made is that many Buddhists are also atheists, and BSA doesnt seem to mind that in the least, knowing that the Buddhist ethical system can lead them "to be the best kind of citizens". I disagree; I think most in the BSA are simply ignorant, and don't realize that Buddhists can be atheists. The DRP as written now doesn't allow for atheists Buddhists to be "the best kind of citizens."

Furthermore, even if a scout is a member of a religion that has a recognized religious award, that's no guarantee that the scout meets the BSA's religious requirements, since it's still perfectly possible to be e.g. a Buddhist or a Jew and also an atheist.

No, the BSA would certainly win; "freedom of religion" does not restrict the actions of the BSA, which is a private club. If they can deny Eagle awards based on an applicant being an atheist (and they do), they can deny it on any religious grounds whatsoever.

Well, I might have expected that no cites would be forthcoming; that seems to be fairly common with anti-ACLU stories. Of course, if the ACLU did act as such a Jekyll-and-Hyde manner, how do they get and keep new members? People who join expect the ACLU to act according to their stated principles, so if the ACLU says one thing, but supposedly acts totally opposite to their stated principles, the people who joined due to the ACLU's public statements would be leaving in droves. But I don't see that happening, either.

So you have no cites...Can you at least name the high school where you claim the praying at the pole incidents took place? It looks like there would've been some news coverage at the time. You haven't given any indication where these incidents supposedly took place, and I don't see any reason why you would need to keep it a secret. And yes, I *do* know what other organizations get free berths, as several newspaper accounts have named them: the Berkeley Yacht Club, the Cal Sailing Club, and the Nautilus Institute. All of them have to meet the city's nondiscrimination requirements to qualify for free berths. What's the "selectiveness" you refer to?

Aidan_MacAnBhaird writes: Merlyn_LeRoy - the ACLU ensured the public schools in our neck of Texas could say absolutely nothing about Christmas, yet demanded these kids learn about a number of festivals to do with Wicca, Kwaanza, and some new age group to help "round" out their education. Got any cites? The above contradicts what the ACLU has said for years: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html ... Teaching About Religion 5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences. The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations. ... A kid praying over his own lunch silenetly usually brought disciplinary action until someone brought it into the light of day - thanks to the ACLU. This sentence is ambiguous - if you're saying the ACLU defended the student's rights to pray over his lunch, that's right in line with what the ACLU has said all along: ... 1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. ... Their litigators stood around the school property during "prayer around the flagpole" demanding the kids who attendend (prior to campus opening) be arrested for illegal usage of school property and illegal [association] - know that's the wrong word. Again, do you have any cites? This is in direct contradiction to what the ACLU has said: ... "See You at the Pole" 11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as "see you at the pole," is permissible. School officials, acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event. ... Where are you getting your information? A lot of organizations lie about the ACLU. I would pray that they stop taking BSA to court for things they consider acceptable by other organizations. What are you referring to here? I don't see the ACLU doing this at all. Pre-Dale, the ACLU argued that the BSA was a public accommodation, and thus was subject to New Jersey's antidiscrimination laws; they would not consider discrimination by any other public accommodation acceptable, either. Post-Dale, the BSA is now established as a private, discriminatory organization - yet thousands of public schools own & operate private, discriminatory Scout units. The ACLU would not consider this acceptable by any organization, not just when done by the BSA. The same is true of e.g. publically financed subsidies for berths, parkland, and jamborees.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

A lawsuit wouldn't make any difference; the BSA can kick out Buddhists today if they want to (or Jews, or any other group). They're a private organization.

purcelce writes: Any organization that attempts to keep me from wishing people Merry Christmas I have a problem with that. The ACLU has no problem with people (acting as private citizens) wishing other people "Merry Christmas", and would defend your first amendment right to say it. The problems come in when government officials in their official capacity try to promote their religious views.

It looks like the Buddhists will be bringing this up; someone in rec.scouting.issues actually wrote and asked them: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scouting.issues/msg/15ed2e62c872ccad? Here's part: I was wondering if you could help me with a bit of research. I'm a Scouter from the UK and have been recently drawn into a debate on the Internet about Buddhists in Scouting. Here in the UK the Scout Association allows alternative wording for the Scout Promise (such as "duty to my Dharma") so that it's accessible to all religions. However, I've been informed that the BSA doesn't make any similar accommodation by offering alternative phrasing for their Scout Oath, and that all members must promise "duty to God". I know that Buddhism has many different branches around the world and that some of these branches recognise a variety of gods. My partner is from Taiwan and I've seen the many wonderful statues in the temples during my time living there! However, I used to have a friend who, as a Buddhist, didn't believe in *any* God, gods or deities. How do such strictly non-theist Buddhists cope with the BSA's "duty to God" phrase? Are some Buddhists unable to join because of the use of the word "God", and have there been any formal or informal representations to the BSA or the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting about this? I would be grateful for any questions answered and for any help given. ==================================== From: Victor Iwamura To: Graham Holland You bring up an interesting topic. The BSA in the USA is predominantly a Christian organization and have strong support by them. As Buddhists in the BSA, we have told our Scouts that they may substitute or be silent when it comes to saying "under God". We are trying to influence the powers that be here but it is a difficult struggle. I am going to the BSA meeting in October and will mention to them what you do. Victor Iwamura, Chair National Buddhist Committee on Scouting

People don't seem to have noticed that I wasn't disagreeing with Ed's definition (in fact, I didn't refer to it at all); I was disagreeing with Ed's assertion that my definition of "atheist" changes depending on the argument.

Well Gonzo1, NORAD seems to have found some planes that you think didn't exist.

Gonzo1 writes: In the pre-Sept 11 world, the USA did not have war planes just sitting around loaded with missiles ready to shoot down airliners, so that would not have been feasible. Five jets were scrambled, they were simply too late, chiefly because NORAD wasn't informed as soon as they should have been. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

No Ed, my definition doesn't change. An atheist is not a theist. Since a theist is someone who believes in one or more gods, an atheist is someone who does not fit this definition, i.e. they don't believe in gods. As far as the BSA membership requirements go, it means whatever they mean by it, if they use the term "atheist". If they mean "supreme being", yet they accept a rock or a stream as an acceptable god, I'd say their definitions don't make a lot of sense. And if people have to ask in an unofficial scouting forum what the requirements mean, it doesn't look like the BSA's requirements are terribly clear.

BrentAllen writes: Do you really think the DOD and SS don't have an idea of what is going on in the air space above the president at all times? The school the president was at was near an airport - that's one reason they selected that particular school. Are you saying that if an airplane taking off from that airport had been hijacked, they would have been able to evacuate the entire school in the time it would take to fly it into the school? That's utter nonsense. The Bush administration is dangerously incompetent.

Well SR540Beaver, if the BSA says that "atheists" can't be members, the proper definition of "atheist" would seem to be important. Of course, in this case, it's the BSA's definition of "atheist", which could be complete nonsense. It does appear that the BSA doesn't have very clear rules on what it considers a vitally important membership requirement.