Beavah

Yah, Scouterclaude, I think where you're gettin' hung up is this... The G2SS is not "the law." Yeh can't think of it that way. It's a compilation of safety stuff pulled from a bunch of different sources and written by office folks. It's meant, both bold and regular type, to be a guide to help yeh do things well for your kids. It doesn't affect insurance coverage directly or anything else. Your local council has complete discretion on when and whether to accept a local tour permit application within its service area. Increasingly councils are only accepting/requiring tour permits for travel outside of the district/council service area. You should follow the direction that your council gives you. In some councils near da U.S./Canadian border, local tour permits will be accepted for travel into Canada as well, even though G2SS specifies those should be National Tour Permits. Just a practical exception to keep da regional office sane. Only the law is the law, eh? All da rest is documents to help yeh run a great youth program. Beavah

Yah, the state was completely out to lunch here. The lad was not even close to being negligent by any ordinary meaning of the word. This is a scary trend, eh? In two ways. The first is startin' to view any ordinary outdoor adventure as being so risky that to engage in it by itself is negligent. That's bad news for Scouting, and we should fight such notions or we're going to lose our program. There's nothing inherently dangerous about solo hiking. I do it all the time. It's peaceful. It's safe, if yeh stay within your abilities. His solo hike was ambitious, but not unreasonable for a healthy young man of his experience. He was carrying adequate gear to survive 3 days of unanticipated bivouacs without injury, so he was clearly prepared. He went out of his way to obtain current information from locals and AMC members. He had hiked the area before. All he did was roll his ankle (could happen to anyone), then try to take a short cut not anticipating the added runoff from a very rapid warm-weather melt. That's an ordinary mistake in judgment. From there, he made good choices and effected a self-rescue. In fact his choices were better than some of da SAR folks, who got in trouble makin' ill-advised stream crossings. If we consider healthy young folks negligent when they have appropriate gear, seek out current information from local experts, and who are able to self-rescue despite injury and very poor weather, then what's goin' to happen when an older overweight scoutmaster with younger kids rolls an ankle and isn't able to self-rescue? Negligence and reckless endangerment of youth no doubt! $25K assessment per person in the troop!! Da state needs money, after all. Da second concern is the one expressed by other agencies. The only thing this absurd policy teaches is "don't call for help." The lad didn't need help; he self-rescued. So anybody readin' this should rightly look at it and say "Hey, I'm never calling for help in NH." Terrible notion. I also don't reckon it's a reasonable thing to try to charge a victim helicopter fees just because yeh sent your own helicopter off on a training mission so it wasn't available for a real rescue, and yeh had to rent one. What does that mean, that hikers should call ahead and find out about your aircraft training and maintenance schedule so they don't get slapped with thousands in extra fees? If I were living in the state I'd be embarrassed. They didn't have a leg to stand on legally and from a public policy perspective their behavior is unconscionable. That they spent a year harassin' this lad and his family is a travesty. In da private sector those officials would be fired. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

In order to know what's good we have to understand what is bad. Yah, I disagree with that premise, eh? I think in order to know what's good yeh have to look at what's good. Lots of times da things unsuccessful troops (or people) do are pretty similar to da things successful troops or people do. Just the timing or style is off. Generally speakin', my experience is that troops follow da style and character of their adult leaders. When yeh have strong, committed, and kid-savvy adult leaders, they do well. When those leaders move on, or new folks come who create adult-conflict, units decline. When yeh get to "too small" and nobody steps up, units fold. It's not usually a horror story. It's usually just a natural thing, eh? The less effective adult leadership leads to kids not feelin' as supported and so they go elsewhere. Their friends follow. When there's a lot of adult conflict, yeh lose good leaders, or at least a lot of their time gets wasted and their attitude gets affected. So kids feel less supported and go elsewhere. Their friends follow. Pretty ordinary. Not a trainin' thing either, for the most part. Strong, committed, kid-savvy adult leaders are mostly found, and then supported. Not made. Beavah

I have yet to see any reason why sexual orientation should/could/would affect ability to fight in a war. Oh, I dunno Scoutfish. Let's say, for example, that we're fightin' a war in a conservative Islamic nation, where homosexuality remains a religious taboo. Do yeh think it would perhaps make it harder for locals to cooperate with us? For tribesmen to take our side and fight alongside us? Do yeh think perhaps it would make the enemy fight harder so as to avoid da stigma of losing to such a force? Do yeh think perhaps it would make recruiting easier for the enemy? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Some positions kinda already have the respect Yah, but only in their area of expertise, eh? I might respect my new pastor because he's da pastor when he gives a sermon on the meaning of da gospel. But when it comes to fixin' my toilet, I'm goin' to be respectin' da plumber who lives down the street. No matter what my pastor says. Gotta keep that in mind too. A lad may give da benefit of the doubt to his Scoutmaster on how to set up a tent. But da Scoutmaster may not deserve da benefit of the doubt on how to reprogram an i-thingy... or how to deal with some other "young folks" issue. Beavah

Splittin' hairs too fine, Gern. What if I don't have a gay brother? What if I'm not married? Da BSA will happily answer questions about your theist son even if you are atheist. They'll happily provide help in understanding your hetero son even if you are gay. And da reality as we all know is that we do continue to provide services to lads who are strugglin' with belief and claim to be atheists, and to lads who are strugglin' with sexuality and claim to be gay. That's more than a women's clinic will do for me, eh? Da military's position may be overturned by the democratic process through the executive branch and congress, eh? Expectin' da courts to do it over da objections of the other two branches is quite a stretch. But I reckon even then that da military will continue to provide denominational chaplains. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I know several state public universities that offer LGBT programming on da public dime. Are those services therefore illegal? We give public funds to womens health clinics and programs. Also illegal? Federal grants to improve the educational programs and retention of girls and minorities in various fields. Also illegal? Social services targeted to special populations - everything from da Amish to the special needs of immigrants. Also illegal? Da military's position on LGBT and on women in certain combat roles. Also illegal? And that's before we get into preferential treatment, like Affirmative Action, eh? Da world is a far more complex and interestin' place than trite formulaic arguments make out. Da resolution of disputes often turns on da facts and circumstances of a case for that reason - because when yeh apply trite formulaic arguments you mostly do all kinds of damage to lots of good things, and that's not in society's best interest. A bit like "Win all you can", eh? Sometimes it's just better to cooperate with each other on different stuff, even when yeh disagree with 'em. Because it makes everyone better. So da "satisfactory answer" is that if yeh have a black urban church that is willing to partner with your public school to provide intervention and tutoring and other services to kids who are members, then it serves da public interest to help 'em do that. Because those kids are more likely to stay in school and go on to graduate. Even though that church isn't helpin' immigrant Vietnamese kids. If yeh have an Alcoholics Anonymous program that supports da social services needs of some of your population, yeh partner with 'em and use 'em. Because those folks are less likely to relapse, and that serves a public interest. Even though AA isn't for everybody. Yeh do those things because you care more about serving people than you do about simplistic legalisms. Which is why yeh need to get out and work with kids, and needy families, and understand what da real issues are in helpin' folks, and how to put resources together to reach 'em. If yeh help da AME tutoring program they bring resources to the table, which leaves yeh with more resources to go help da Vietnamese kids through the local Community Center. If yeh partner with AA, they bring resources which frees up more of your resources to help da fellow who can't be served by the twelve steps but needs more direct and expensive psychiatric care. If yeh partner with da BSA they bring camps and materials and insurance and resources for free that will meet da needs of maybe 10% of your students. Leaves yeh with more time and resources to reach da other 90%. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

"At the time", Beavah, did the words in the contract that either party could terminate the contract with one years notice mean something different? It'd be a question of fact. What did it mean to them at the time. And how were da terms used in other contracts in the area at the time? On da face of it, as I mentioned, it would be a foolish contract for the scouts to enter (and an inequitable one for da city to draft) if the meaning was really that the city could toss 'em a year or two later after they had just built the city a building. So I reckon the notion that it was meant to imply a completely "at will" termination is a stretch. But a bit depends on how these things are viewed in Pennsylvania. Beavah

Ah but this BOR was for rank advancement and as soon as the fact came to light that the Scout hadn't completed all the requirements, the BOR should have been stopped Fiddlesticks. Yeh have the lad all there and trussed up and nervous, and yeh have a group of adults who came out to give their time to the lad. Why in da world would you stop da BOR? Seems like a waste, eh? Yeh just keep goin'. Look at other things, give him encouragement, talk some more about his experience in da troop and what his interests are, encourage him to look at some fun merit badges or to get involved in da next step of leadership. Not "I don't want to talk to you, you're not done!". Advancement is just a small part of our program, eh? Consider the time without workin' advancement as a gift to spend on Adult Association and Values and Personal Growth and all that. You remember, da other methods! Beavah

Yah, I never got da notion that you should demand respect. I think it shows a fellow or a gal who just doesn't "get it" and who probably shouldn't be in youth work... or management... or a leadership role anywhere. Leadership, especially in a youth program, is an act of service. Yeh do it without expecting reward or recognition or respect, out of duty to God or to others. Sometimes yeh get respect; sometimes yeh get grief . But if you're lookin' for an earthly reward for acts of kindness and service you're foolin' yourself. I don't think respect ever comes automatically with a position. I think for some positions (boss, minister/priest/rabbi/imam, physician, etc.) yeh get the benefit of the doubt because of your position. If yeh then demonstrate care and service, yeh ratify the benefit of the doubt you were given and yeh earn respect. If you don't, then people won't respect yeh and it's foolish to demand it. If they're mature, they still might listen to you or obey you because they recognize that's an act of kindness and service to the group on their part in order to keep the company running. But it ain't respect. It's just them being classy. There's somethin' funny about da Scout Law, eh? It's all positives. Yeh can never force someone to do a positive thing. Can't force 'em to be cheerful. Punishing someone for not being cheerful doesn't work. All you can do is inspire 'em. Inspire 'em to be trustworthy by your own example of being trustworthy and trusting them. Inspire 'em to be reverent by your own example of reverence and your invitation to join in. We only punish bad choices, like settin' fire to your tent. Punishment is for reducing da likelihood the lads will do something negative (again). Good things, like respect, we must inspire. Beavah

Yah, contracts require a meeting of the minds, eh? I don't reckon that the real understanding of the contract at the time it was drafted was that the council could build the city a building for free and then be kicked to da curb one year later so the city could take possession of a shiny, new building paid for by someone else. My guess is that the understanding was closer to da traditional meaning of "perpetuity". It's da only rational way to read the contract, and such contracts were fairly common back then for public entities to enter into. Serves the public good - yeh get somethin' nice for the town, yeh get the organization's services for da community, and if the organization ever folds the land and building can continue to be used for public purpose instead of being turned into condos or a McDonalds . Still, not having read da filings, I'd expect the case to go against the CoLC. Da BSA of late has been usin' some really weak, ideologically-driven law firms. From what I understand, this is another example. If Irving weren't such a mess right now, they'd be well advised to do a better job tryin' to coordinate legal, PR, and lobbying strategy across da country on cases like this one. Beavah

Actually Merlyn only wants the BSA to be treated as the private organization the Sureme Court said it was. Nah, OGE, if yeh look earlier in da thread, he was proposing a higher level of restriction to access. Even though such restriction is not just beyond what can be expected of private organizations, it's contrary to current law. The point is to eliminate or marginalize programs yeh disagree with. The argument just morphs to take whatever form or step is expedient to achieve that end. This does mean that no taxpayer money is to be spent on an organization that discriminates on a legal basis Yah, where do yeh get that? Taxpayer money is spent on private organizations all the time, and on organizations that discriminate on a legal basis. If it weren't, we'd need to nationalize a lot more industries and services. That may be what some (maybe you?) want, but it ain't exactly consistent with our historical view of liberty. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I don't care whether yeh volunteer for a public or private club, Merlyn. YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs, robot team, science olympiad, whatever. When yeh care about and work with kids in any program, yeh learn that helpin' them is what matters, and you find ways to deal with whatever bureaucracy yeh happen to be saddled with. Da "action" in this business isn't at the policy level, it's at the human level. Come join us at da human level. Care for kids. Whatever kids yeh feel you can help. Build a program or support an old one. Invite all comers or just take the kids yeh feel you have the ability to help. Put your time where your mouth is. Prove that we're wrong about what makes the "best kind of citizen." Do more and do it better than an average Scoutmaster. Care more than an average church youth director. I double-dare yeh. Beavah

I am an Eagle, was SPL more than once, was OA, and in the Band, played two sports (captain of one), in Student Government, Did Drama club one year, involved at church, and a straight A student. Yah, I think this is da other half of the equation. Bright, active kids like md3 fill up their own days, eh? If they weren't doing OA or da high adventure prep trip or whatnot they would find something else to fill that time, and remain just as "overscheduled." Less active kids will fill that time with video games. Video games have become da substitute for what I used to do as a kid - run around da neighborhood with pals. That kind of unstructured time seems to have gone the way of the dodo. I think da biggest change over the years has been the absurd explosion of professional sports and music programs into elementary and middle school. Second biggest change has been parental expectations that their kids should be involved in a half dozen things; I seem to remember only bein' in one or two. Beavah

Yah, I read da title of this three times, and every time I read "Whom does the SPL eat?" Da brain does funny things sometimes! Here are some of da things I've seen: Eat with their "home" patrol. Eat (and tent) with whichever patrols they feel need some extra help & support on that campout. Eat with different patrols on a rotating basis. Eat with whichever patrol entices 'em with da best cooking. Eat small amounts from every patrol to sample and rate the cooking. Eat with the adults. Eat and tent on their own. Eat (and possibly tent) with da other troop positions (like QM, JASM, Instructors, etc.) Eat (and tent) with da Senior Patrol / Leadership Corps / whatever yeh call 'em these days. Eat (and possibly) tent with da Venture Patrol. Mooch food off da senior counselors. Mooch food off da female Venturing staffers. Bring a cell phone and call for a pizza delivery (no kiddin'!) I'm sure there are more! Beavah

people like you who would see no problem in cutting off a group you dislike from a program paid for by all Nah, scoutin' pays its own way. Very few CO's even contribute to charter fees. But people like us would have no problem funding a group we disliked (say a school AA club). Seems like it's you who wants to cut off a group you dislike from da public schooling program paid for by all. and contemptuously telling them to "get their own program" If offerin' help to get yeh started and even offerin' to contribute is contemptuous, I must have mislaid my dictionary . I don't care if yeh get your own program. I just am encouragin' you to join and contribute to any youth program. Volunteer for da Boosters. Yeh seem to have time durin' the day to be on a computer, go in to tutor math or offer an after-school computer club. Call up your local school district and offer to help 'em with the middle school forensics club (middle schools around here always need volunteer help for electives and extracurriculars). Go to a church and offer to give a talk on da atheist perspective to their confirmation class. Coach soccer. Lead da chess club. Whatever. Yeh seem to expect that other people should volunteer, but not you. We religious volunteers must shoulder da burden of providing a values-based outdoor citizenship and leadership program to atheists, eh? But as you've told us repeatedly, we'd be lousy at it! We're all liars and contemptuous twads, eh? Why in da world would you want kids you care about to be subject to our leadership?! We agree with yeh, we really would be awful at it, which is why we don't do it. I couldn't go out into God's wild places with kids and not share a religious perspective. Our Oath and Law, our symbols like da Arrow of Light, are all religiously grounded. Admitting the son of some dedicated atheists to scoutin' with us really would be dishonest. Why in the name of Him Whom You Call a Myth would yeh want that? At the same time, why would anybody who cares about kids turn away a bunch of tom-fools who want to volunteer a thousand hours a year to provide an educational, service-based citizenship and leadership program at no cost to da district? They shouldn't turn you away, either. Whether yeh want to run an AA club or be the summer Discovery Camp director. You can be the person who actually makes a difference in some lad's life. And all of us here as scouters and non-atheists would support you in tryin' to offer a good program to whatever kids you thought you could reach. Because by reachin' some kids, you'd be doin' a good turn and a solid public service. Just like we do a solid public service by reachin' some kids. Same as NHS. Same as band. Yeh don't seem like you're married, most of us married fellows gave up bein' right a long time ago . Bein' right is overrated, eh? All about ego. Carin' for people, that's what counts. Go find some young folks, and care enough about 'em to give 'em a bunch of your time. I dare yeh! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Aw, acco, yeh fed da troll. Now this will become an all-about-Merlyn thread Da CoLC built the building out of its own funds and then surrendered it to the city in exchange for a perpetual lease. So if da city is going to cancel the perpetual lease, shouldn't they offer to pay the council the current fair market value of the building? B

The slower more relaxed pace and meeting schedule seems to relegate Scouting to the role of third class citizen. Yah, that's what I'm seein'. If yeh don't have a busy schedule full of mandatory stuff, you must not be worthwhile. So scoutin' gets to be the Ugly Betty at the ball, eh? We get their attention only when they don't have somethin' "better". Even though we've got a great personality . There's some truth to it, too. If yeh really are practicing a lot, with required team play, yeh get good at stuff fast. You see results. Yeh get stronger, yeh get faster, yeh get better at blockin' shots on goal. When yeh only meet once a week for an hour, yeh don't grow as quickly. Yeh don't see results. And there's that other thread about parents pushin' for results, eh? So I think those go-go-go programs are meeting a real demand. Professional coaches, regular mandatory practices, rapid results. Our relaxed, go-at-your-own-pace, led-by-volunteer-parents thing may be outdated. I honestly don't see us as part of da overscheduling craze, though. I think that's just a reflection of da pressures other activities are placing on families. Seems like making boys choose between things would be a lot kinder than givin' 'em badges for being overscheduled. Beavah

Meanwhile, he has no qualms advocating that atheist kids be left out in the cold. If they are, it's only because fellows like yourself who could provide 'em a strong program don't step up to da plate. I'd support yeh, I'd give yeh what advice I could, I'd argue yeh should have access and school sponsorship. Heck, if yeh were doing a good job for da lads, I might even send you money. But I can't offer an atheist program, eh? I don't have da knowledge or the temperament. I should (quite rightly) be excluded as a leader. So if fellows like you don't step up, you're right, eh? Some atheist's kid may be left out in the cold. That's why, if yeh really care about such kids, you need to get involved, and others like you. Yeh need to offer your time in a program that benefits such kids. Don't expect us religionists to shoulder da burden of providin' that kind of service. We don't know how. But it seems like you know how, and it seems like you claim to care about such kids. So what mature citizens do when they care enough about somethin' is they step forward and volunteer. They give their time and their treasure to meet da need they care about. There's a lad somewhere who is aching for a place to fit in, a place to share his skepticism and hone his mind, an adult who can affirm his views with quiet dignity of example. He's waitin' for you, Merlyn. Da only question is, do you care enough to actually step forward and volunteer? Beavah

Bullies thrive in an environment where society views the bully and their target as both "victims" of the "system" - because when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. Yah, amen to that. I know a fellow who knows a fellow who does research on this sort of stuff. They tell me that by and large kids feel betrayed by adults who take the tack codger describes. Makin' bullying into a "system" thing rather than steppin' forward and standing up to it directly and personally like an adult should. Da lesson codger learned as a young fellow is one we all should take to heart. Our example is what da kids will follow, not our words. I do have a bone to pick with yeh, though, codger. You are way too young to be callin' yourself a codger. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Hard to answer that without specifics, eh? Da BSA does have membership requirements. Generally they don't come up unless a lad or a family or adult leader choose to make a big deal about 'em. Every now and then da BSA may remove the membership of a boy or adult for behavioral reasons, eh? Some behaviors (ex. sellin' drugs at camp, assault on another youth, etc.) are just incompatible with being a scout. Mostly, councils just defer to da units, and only take up a membership issue after a unit has made a determination. But if a unit chooses to expel a scout or adult for a good reason, da council may well follow suit with a membership termination. Yeh don't mention what your position is in all this, kittle. Unless you're on da council EB or are a principal leader (COR/CC/unit leader) of the lad's unit, I'm not sure yeh have any role in "making sure he's treated fairly". Yeh just have to trust that other good people will do their jobs. Beavah

Nah, the genuine, friendly challenge that yeh use your passion and intellect to do somethin' for da kids you claim to care about. It might strengthen your resolve on da issue, I don't know and don't care. I am reasonably sure it will make your arguments richer and more effective, or at least less juvenile. Nuthin' like having to put up with a teenager in da house (or da classroom or campground) to teach yeh what a juvenile argument looks like . So no strings attached, eh? I don't want yeh to change your mind. And workin' with kids is definitely the antidote to holier-than-thou stuff. It's humbling, and frustrating. Darned critters have minds of their own . Yah, but it's also fun and rewardin', and by and large yeh learn more from 'em than what you teach 'em. But it takes someone who really cares, not just offers lip-service to da cause. Workin' with kids is like marriage, eh? It takes commitment, because yeh have to stick with 'em when they're most annoying. Yeh seem to have enough passion to stick with a cause, and yeh seem to really need to hang out with us youth volunteer types, even when yeh find us really annoying. So how 'bout it? I tell you truly, that when guys like you don't step forward to give, there is a kid somewhere who takes a different path because you were missing. Do yeh care enough to be there for that lad? Beavah

you keep trying to justify religious discrimination on the flimsiest of grounds, i.e. "we'd like to." Nah, you've got it backward, eh? Yeh keep trying to justify aggressive federal intrusion on da flimsiest of grounds, pretending it's da same thing as state-mandated racial segregation. That's either disingenuous or ignorant, can't tell which. Love your off-point citations, though, eh? Yeh keep dodgin' da real issue, which is that yeh need to get off your duff and go do some volunteerin'. If yeh knew anything about workin' with schools and kids, you'd be able to speak more credibly than you are right now. You'd figure out that the real circumstances of kids and kids' programs are a lot more complex than your limited understandin' at the moment. If there really was some discrimination which was harmful, you'd be able to frame a more effective argument, and you'd have more credibility and more supporters. More than that, yeh might actually get excited about doin' something productive that really helps children yeh care about, and really uses your intellect and talents for somethin' worthwhile. But if yeh want to cede the real work of helpin' kids to all of us religionists, I suppose we shouldn't mind. Just means that we're the ones contributin' to the next generation of values and ideals, not you. So how 'bout it? Da average Scoutmaster puts in about a thousand hours of community service to kids a year. Can yeh manage 500? 250? My offer stands, tell me where you're located and I'll put yeh in touch with youth organizations that can use your help. Everyone here puts their boots on the ground where da real work is done, and I reckon in some ways we're more critical of da BSA office-rats in Irving than you are . So come join us in doin' some real work for boys and girls. Beavah

Merlyn old boy. Cases begin as sets of facts arisin' from particular circumstances. Until yeh get out in the world and do some work with kids, and understand how youth programs really work, and school programs and community partnerships really work, and da law really works, yeh aren't goin' to be able to build a credible case. And if yeh really want people who spend thousands of hours of volunteer time workin' with kids to consider your point of view, and perhaps even change their view, yeh have to have some street cred. Da schools could use you. I'm sure some atheist and other kids could benefit from your real, personal, concern and care. Everybody here would support you with whatever good insight and advice and resources we could. We'd want yeh to succeed, because we care about kids. It just takes yeh being willing to spend your time doin' something that really has impact on their lives. It's spring, eh? Time for new growth and new initiatives! How about it, will yeh take us up on the challenge? Or is it really true that only those who subscribe to belief in a higher power make the best kind of citizens, because it's only us who are willin' to give up our time and treasure as committed volunteers for others? Beavah

Yah, while I'm eatin' my pie, I'll respond to NJ just so he/she doesn't think I'm ignorin' da question, even though I've laid out my argument in previous posts. NJ, you're makin' a claim that da practice is unconstitutional for da same reason Merlyn blathers on about. But honestly, it's an open question, eh? There's never been a binding decision rendered by any precedent-setting court. And while you and Merlyn make a fine emotive argument, it's not a legal argument, eh? I think if yeh found the right test case - a district that chartered BSA units, and ran an American Atheists club, and set aside school time for muslims to pray led by a local imam that the school vetted (so they could run background checks and keep kids safe), etc. then yeh make a very simple argument. 1) The chartering of a unit serves a public purpose. It teaches citizenship and life skills that are consistent with the district's mission while providin' outside resources that a cash-strapped district doesn't have, so it's consistent with many community partnerships. Da unit provides a gathering place and social connections for kids with that interest (which has been shown to improve achievement). It also attracts students that would otherwise feel uncomfortable/excluded because of their beliefs and would tend to go to charter / private institutions; it therefore improves district revenues in some states. Furthermore, and most important, the state has a compelling interest in vetting those who have contact with children in the schools to ensure the safety of students, and that is best accomplished by being able to approve volunteers. 2) The district is respondin' to an identified interest/need of families and students, and does that on an equal basis by finding resources to support atheist groups, muslim groups, etc. Therefore, the policy of chartering for no-cost services based on student/family choice does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion even though the services da family selects are religious in character. See Zelman. 3) No district funds are used, da leadership is all volunteer, and the district does not have involvement in selecting leaders beyond ensuring they have met the district's background check, behavior, and quality standards for all programs. That clearly does not rise to "excessive entanglement" by the standard of any prior case. Da district owns the donated equipment, which allows it to be used for other school activities like the science club filed trip, so again "ownership" serves a secular public purpose consistent with a broad array of community partnerships. So that disposes of da 3-part test from Lemon, eh? And if anything, da current court is on da conservative side with respect to Lemon anyways. When yeh look at other precedent, da court has tended to try to strike a delicate balance. Rulings have gone against prayer in "captive audience" type settings or by government actors (school employees). But we're not talkin' prayer, or a captive audience setting, or school employees here, eh? That puts it on da other side of the balance, where the court tends to uphold da practice. Da court has even denied cert. on a case which upheld captive-audience recruiting by the BSA durin' school time, and this wouldn't even be that invasive. In many ways, a school chartering a BSA unit is functionally equivalent to da federal government chartering the BSA, eh? Do yeh think our federal charter is unconstitutional? Given the current makeup of SCOTUS (and especially their somewhat bold, even ill-advised, willingness to overturn or redirect precedent), I think da case of a school policy like that which made it that far would be upheld. It'll never happen because it just ain't worth the expense when yeh can achieve the same thing by shufflin' paperwork. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)