Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I don't want to sidetrack da thread with gambling. But at least be aware that unless you're startin' a crew on an Indian Reservation, holding a raffle or other gambling event gets yeh in trouble with the real police, not just da Uniform Police . Only a NFP entity can hold a gambling event, and then even that's limited by state. So yer back to what scoutldr says. If you have a CO identified, they can do whatever they can legally do to raise money, eh? And then direct it toward whatever program of theirs that they want. Doesn't matter whether the crew is chartered yet or not. I'd be more inclined to charter, borrow some gear from a friendly troop or crew in the area for an outing or three, and then hold a fundraiser. Yeh can also apply to your council (or CO, or other community fund) for a small grant to help with unit startup costs. As far as backpacks go, those are tough to run as rentals/loaners. Too many size and fit issues. Requires yeh to keep too big an inventory. Not a great economic choice. Not a great practical choice either because it takes time for each person to "get used to" his or her pack and how to pack it. Might be better to work out a purchasing arrangement with a local outdoor shop or with a supplier/distributor. Any member who comes in can purchase with that discount. Some outfitter stores also have demos/rentals which can be used by someone not ready to purchase. My opinion is that it ain't kosher to use fund-raised monies to buy personal gear. A lot like saying "I'm raising money for Katrina victims" and then using it on your own house (fraud). Either that or it's compensation for labor (if you work the fundraiser, you get $X per hour in gear), which must be reported as income. But if a program raises money for the program (not scout accounts), and then the program officers say "Joe's parents are out of work and he has severe financial need, so we're going to buy him a backpack to be able to participate," well, that's closer, eh? If you're goin' this way, be sure to talk to da CO and their legal counsel or a competent NFP/tax attorney in your state. Depends a bit on da CO's status whether they can give direct grants to needy individuals in this way. Perhaps a good option is to make a long-term loan purchase. Buy a backpack that fits Joe (but is owned by the crew). Even let Joe pick it out. Let Joe use it for as long as he is in the program. When Joe leaves the program, he either returns the pack so that it can be used by someone else, or he buys the pack from the crew at an appropriate price (and they use the money to buy a new pack for the next kid who needs one). Dat's completely kosher, and helps keep the crew goin'! Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... that sounds like it was quite an Ordeal. I couldn't find it on any news searches either. Scouter30, yeh might not like da answer I'm goin' to give, but I figure you deserve the straight scoop. There's so much goin' on in your note that it just ain't possible for anybody to sort it out by remote, and clearly too much emotion for you to be objective. I think it is safe to say that filing a lawsuit against an organization is a fairly unfriendly act. Accusing adults of acting criminally (and publicly!) is a very unfriendly act. Under most circumstances, I would expect that to lead to a "forced separation" for a volunteer, who isn't afforded the same protections as an employee under employment law. At the simplest level, it creates a bad conflict of interest for an SE who has a legal and moral duty to vigorously defend the council against your claims, while at the same time trying to provide you with high-quality service. At another level, you forced the SE to choose between your membership and that of the OA chapter leaders whom you accused of wrongdoing. He chose. You lost. And Eamonn's right. If yer wife wins a 6-digit settlement, it comes straight out of youth programs, camp funds, and other scouting monies. We're self-insured for the first $1M, eh? I doubt that reinstatement in the BSA is likely for you and your wife, at least not in the near term. I think that option is closed unless it becomes part of a settlement agreement (or injunctive relief) from the suit, or until a number of years have passed after resolution of the complaint. You can have your attorneys try to pursue the matter on your behalf. I think you should be prepared, though, to never be a BSA volunteer again. If you really care for your unit, I would step graciously aside, and send the SE a very kind note (approved by your attorneys) saying that you received his membership revocation and understand, and that you are withdrawing from all contact with the units in question. Give others some space to work things out. I can't even begin to guess what the issues are involving the simultaneous termination of 3 units by either the BSA or the CO, so there's just no way to comment, eh? But as a random piece of advice, if the rest of da members really wanted to continue with the BSA, I would then have the folks from the units who are friendly to the council and not part of the fight sit with the FD and the IH of the Chartered Org. and try to work something out. Da other alternatives are just to have the units continue youth programming on their own without BSA materials, or chartering with an alternative like Campfire USA. Nothing says that you have to stay a BSA unit. That keeps the "unit family" together, so to speak. Beavah

Yah, Novice Cubmaster asked a question at the tail end of one of da long issues and politics threads that might be missed by some people. So I'm copyin' the substance of it in a new thread. Note that I'm puttin' it in the Program area, so that it's not a discussion of whether there should be religion in Scouting, but rather how to do it well. ******* While religion in scouting is definitely important to some percentage of scouters & parents, how important is it to the scouts themselves? The fact that advancement doesn't require earning the religious emblem and the low number of scouts that earn it says something. Like gwd-scouter, I've only seen two discussions about religion or spiritual matters initiated by a scout (both Boy Scouts, not Cubs). One was a very personal question of faith, the other general curiosity. I would like to see more scouts not just earn their emblems, but WANT to earn them, and learn more about their faith. Ah, but how to do this? From ASM915's post - "The best way is to lead by example. If the leaders aren't setting the example by showing their faith and Duty to God, why do we expect this of the Scouts?" In a unit with scouts of many faiths, what are some things we scouters can do?

Yah, hmmm..... A self-described "Novice Cubmaster" asked what looked like a real question of us all. But once again da thread got hijacked, first by Merlyn, and then by our regular cast of folks who disagree with having religious expression as part of the BSA. As amusing and tedious as those repetitious rants are, I wonder aloud if perhaps as a general rule da folks who want to start ranting might be willing to spend the extra 10 seconds to spin off a thread, rather than insisting on blowing up ever thread that gets anywhere near the topic? I was really kinda interested in real answers to Novice Cubmaster's question, especially from people who don't normally comment on this topic for fear of bein' drawn into a rant. Beavah

Yah, You Can Make.... what's your position in this troop, eh? Are you the parent of the boy, another parent, a committee member, the CC? We can only give our best advice if we give it to you, eh? So we need to know who you are and where you fit in. In answer to your question, the practical reality is "yes". If a Scoutmaster is asking a boy to leave after several severe incidents, that's it, eh? What parent would insist that a boy stay on with a SM (and presumably ASM staff) who didn't want him there? What committee would overrule a Scoutmaster on that kind of safety and character decision? What Scoutmaster wouldn't resign immediately if they did so, knowing that he would be responsible for a boy's behavior that he couldn't control? On a more procedural level, how each unit chooses to handle it is up to da unit, eh? Unlike adult applications, youth applications are approved just by the unit leader, so by extension one might say that the Scoutmaster also has the ability to remove. So some units may delegate removal decisions to the SM, especially for "safety" issues. Some may allow an "appeal" to the Committee, others may not. Some may reserve such decisions to the committee or the CC. I'd be careful about "whole committee" decisions like that in an "all-parent" committee - it sets up some parent vs. parent stuff that can be a problem. Ultimately it's da COR's call I guess, but in da BSA setup they usually wouldn't get involved at that level, just in the appointment and removal of adults. So yeh need to notify the COR if you're planning on overriding the SM, since he/she will need to be looking for a new SM. Eamonn's got a good point as they're the ones that get named in the suit, so at least informing the CO is a good idea Beavah

Yah, I'm not real fond of a commish offerin' unsolicited uniform "advice" even in units he's a commissioner for. Be a friend, offer advice where asked. Uniform stuff is often "cheap" advice that often says more about your ego (wantin' to show off by pointing out errors) than where they really need guidance, eh? For this young scouter, there is a "helpful" issue in that it can be kind not to let him continue to make a fool of himself at district events. But I'd say yeh let it go unless you know him well or have a chance for an informal chat over coffee or around a campfire. Let someone who is closer to him be the one to inquire. Someone will. Beavah

Oops. Seems that no sooner do I open a Peanut Gallery then one of da moderators shuts down the main event! Ah well, my apologies. Beavah

Well, I see Merlyn has traipsed through and hijacked several other threads, with Ed hot on his heels, but they seem to have established a new one-on-one thread in the Denigrates... bit. So, for those interested in continuing the sidebar, here's an opportunity. Please, no comments from Merlyn or Ed, and please limit independent discussion. This is just a "peanut gallery" and commentator blog on da original thread. ------- Ed trots out a fun analogy with Notre Dame clubs. I've met a few of those! My, they certainly are rabid in their enthusiasms! So do they denigrate others by allowing only ND grads as members? Merlyn says no, citing the DRP's notion of "best kind of citizenship" as an example of denigration. I personally still think the analogy is apt. I'm willing to bet that the ND Clubs at some point celebrate that Notre Dame provides the "best kind of education" and college experience. In fact, I suspect that's part of their great fundraising success . And of course, Notre Dame itself uses tax money (federal grants and student loans, state of Indiana bonding authority, etc.) to support its efforts. That's not a bad deal, since the government gets a number of well-trained lawyers, businessmen, engineers, scientists, social service workers and the like out of it. But it's still tax dollars spent in a private, sectarian enterprise. I find the analogy quite apropos. Beavah

Yah, see what happens, OGE? I vote yeh re-open da Ed and Merlyn thread. Give 'em somewhere to pound it out so they don't go traipsing all over every other thread. Kinda like we use Issues & Politics to keep this stuff out of da rest of the topic areas, eh? Beavah

My suggetion is to err on the side of the scout. Yah, I agree with everything my fellow commish says above. Like GLD, I wish we could do a better job with summer camp MB quality. But it's tough, eh? I especially agree with GLD on this last bit: "We should err on the side of the scout." To me that means we should err in favor of making sure the scout has the best, most rich and rewarding scouting experience. We should make sure he really gets a first-class experience in Lifesaving. That he really develops great skills in First Aid, that Art MB really engages him in the requirements because that just might be a lifelong hobby or future career for the lad, if it's done properly. We should make sure he really understands climbing rope systems because he might be called upon to help with a troop climbing outing, or pioneering because as a PL he might need to lead his patrol in such a project. By all means, err in favor of the scout! But err like an adult: don't necessarily give him what he wants, give him what he needs and deserves. Make sure he always gets a quality experience, not just a patch. Beavah

Oh, sure... somebody probably read the instructions or somethin'. Not fair! :)

Hey, how'd that Ohio dude get the cool new Smillie? Is that like a secret Jesuit trick or somethin'? 8)

Gad, mention the "R" word and Merlyn is sure to appear. Back to da topic for Novice_Cubmaster (Merlyn arguments can go to another thread). I think it depends on the unit... primarily on the adults, but also on the sponsor. Around here, da Mormons and the Catholics tend to have the most faith-based units. You'll find real "duty to God" discussions on BOR's, real practiced faith in the troops. Mormons mostly keep to themselves, Catholic units have a lot of non-Catholic boys but it doesn't seem to be an issue. Others are all over da place, but it's safe to say that there's some religious expression in all of 'em. For a lot of kids, it's the first place in their life as a citizen (outside their church) where religious expression, even as a token, is welcome and normal. The first place where they get to see (and sometimes talk about) others expressing faith. I think there was even a BSA poll statistic that something like 20% of the boys got their first experience with organized religion through Scouting. How can you be a knowledgeable citizen in the U.S. and have no experience with organized religion? In short, Scouting is da first environment for kids that's really like what their adult life as a citizen will be. Where people care about religion, where people attend weddings and funerals and baptisms and memorial services for friends of different faiths. Where they see adults and fellow youth express ethics and decision-making that is sometimes grounded in religion. I think dat's a great gift to the kids and the country, to provide probably the only place where they get to live like real citizens in a faith-filled world. Public schools won't do it, religion is taboo. Soccer won't do it. Only in Scouting do they learn that religion and religious values are a normal part of citizenship in da U.S., and that it's OK to participate respectfully with each other. I'd hate to see us lose that. Even a little is a good thing. Beavah

Yah, I gotta agree with Lisabob here. I'm part of a lot of organizations. I can't say that there's a single organization, even my church, where I really agree with 'em on everything. If joining an organization meant agreeing on everything then we'd all be pretty lonely, eh? I think we all strike a balance where we give up some of what we care about in order to be part of an organization that does some good in other ways. And, as organizations, we also tolerate some diversity of approach and eccentricity in our membership. I think most folks, even where they disagree with the BSA on some stuff (look at the folks in Chicago!), still are willing to support the movement for the good that it does. And da Wiccans just aren't a big enough group to really support a strong specialty youth program. Not to say that someone else couldn't eat our lunch. The Big Churches could create their own program in a hurry. If a state like California got into it in terms of providing experiential outdoors citizenship programs as a public school option, they'd cream us. A bunch of breakaway councils might be able to do it. Or a national association like the teachers unions or school boards partnered with someone like Outward Bound. The important features are funding, exposure, and they're not "one issue" folks. They can tap into demand for a coed middle school and high school outdoor leadership program with perhaps a bit less conservative bent, but it's not their only focus. So far, all da SFA and Spiral Scouts and other folks have been one-issue amateurs. They don't even look particularly attractive to those who agree with 'em. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I think it's probably reasonable to assume that in the next year if not next week we'll have a new General Secretary, eh? Even with the general anti-Americanism out there I can't see WSC not blinking. The BSA's position is interesting, given that they have their own "Scout Center" in Philmont, used for some of the same things that the other "Scout Center" developments in WOSM regions are proposed for. And they don't particularly support the local councils or units financially any more than WOSM supports the needy NSO's. In fact, probably less. But culturally, the Europeans are more used to scout huts and scout centers than we are in North America (or other continents). What seems natural for a troop/group in parts of Europe (owning property and its own scout hut) seems extravagant to us. And, too, the rest of the world is more used to scouts collaborating with other youth organizations than we are in the U.S. (one of the goals/markets for the Scout Centers). Here in the U.S., the BSA pretty much goes it alone, eh? These sorts of differences in cultural view may also be part of the disagreement. I don't know enough about the Chilean Center to be able to comment any more. I've only been there once, well before all this bruhaha. Beavah

Yah, LOL! Welcome to da life of a commissioner. That's probably a big reason why I tend to get on the case of folks who are a) a bit too strident in providing information. Too often even if they're right, people hear it wrong and then place too much emphasis on it when they in turn pass it along. Better to be friendly, low key, and give 'em explanations of reasons not just rules. b) passing along urban legends and half-truths, especially ones to "frighten" fellow volunteers into compliance. I think "Webelos can't camp" comes from the Age Appropriate Guidelines on Camporees. Webelos must camp with the troop comes from the "visit a troop activity" requirement coupled with councils that arrange join webelos-troop camporees. Dependin' on where yeh live, not joining Boy Scouts until age 11 might be a hangover from the LDS program, so someone hears it from an LDS scouter and thinks every troop has to work like that. etc., etc. Wish I could change da BSA "rules culture" to be more of a "service culture" that way, eh? Far better to start by thinking "What makes sense for these kids?". But da other way is pretty deeply ingrained. Beavah

Beavah, why hasn't such a case presented itself? It seems that, if it is true that there have been no relevant court rulings, not even Dale, that some school district somewhere would fight this in the courts. Why not? Why is Dale considered so important anyway, if it merely continues a long history of BSA exclusions? Who were all those kids who applied but were rejected by BSA because the parents rejected the oath? How many were there? For how long is "many years"? Yah, pack, I don't want to get all longwinded about this, eh? It was just quick commentary to counter Merlyn's tendency to be a bit hyperbolic. But for quick answers: 1) There's all kinds of things where no case has presented itself, or been appealed so as to set precedent. Thank goodness! Or the country would be more mired in litigation than we are already . Most of da time, people go along to get along. Put another way, there's better things to spend money on, especially if the other side is well funded and can bully yeh into submitting. Which extracurricular program do you cancel at school in order to fight a lawsuit? And why would yeh bother when you can just let the PTO be sponsor? I'd say there are cases that are "relevant" which is why I'd guess that a straight-up challenge would fail. There are also cases that are "relevant" that suggest a more oblique challenge might have a decent shot. But outside a few isolated consent agreements (like Chicago's that led to the spin off of LFL/Exploring) there's nuthin' directly on point. So it's a choice by most school districts. 2) I don't think the Dale case was very important, other than it was needed to reverse an odd NJ State Supreme Court ruling. It said that the BSA had a right to expressive association. Well, duh! Da only thing that's made it anything to talk about is that it became a rallying cry for the radical left to raise challenges against a kids' program, albeit an iconic one. 3) Merlyn probably has a few of 'em at his fingertips. Earliest atheist scout dismissal was in the early 1970s, IIRC. B

Yah, what packsaddle said. And there's the glass houses thing. You also dodge arguments at times to return to shrill core message. So the insults only detract from the argument. Yeh'd be much more convincing as a friend at the dinner table than as a streetcorner preacher. Beavah

I am mystified as to how, after the court decisions, anyone can claim that public schools CAN legally charter BSA pack or troops. That question truly seems to be settled by the courts and protests to the contrary just fall flat. Yah, then find me one case directly on point, eh? Eccentricity of the U.S. system. Freedom is the default until ruled otherwise. I agree with Merlyn that in general I would expect the courts to rule in the way he describes should such a case present itself. But until such a time, school districts are free to choose educational providers, including the BSA. And there are interestin' cases one might imagine, where a school works with GSUSA or Campfire for a girls' outdoor program and then with the BSA for a boys' outdoor program on Title IX grounds. Now is gender or religious discrimination more significant? Or perhaps a district charters a BSA and a Spiral Scouts and a 4-H and a Heritage Girls and a Scouting For All program. Now is that really an establishment clause issue? Or is that the equivalent of displaying a Menorah and a creche and a Christmas tree? One can dream up other cases where programs were targeted at specific "at-risk" populations, much like parochial school vouchers, where the public benefit is balanced against the risk of entanglement. We are talkin', after all, about parents choosing to enroll their kids in the program, not a "mandatory" program. Merlyn's argument regarding BSA's role in all this seems to stem from the view that BSA could have foreseen the outcome of the Dale decision, at least with regard to charters by public schools or other government agencies. If BSA DID foresee that outcome and proceeded to promote such charters anyway, then they were engaging in behavior that was risky. Issue has nothing at all to do with the Dale decision. The BSA had been rejecting membership applications from kids whose parents rejected the Scout Oath for many years before that. Once the courts decided the charters were not legal, further promotion by BSA of charters in public schools as 'legal' could be viewed as a deception on the part of BSA. Nah. That was never done. Don't mistake organizational inertia for deception. And again, there's nothing wrong with offering services to a public body. It's the public body that has the responsibility to choose wisely. Which might be to choose to be the test case. Like "Bong Hits for Jesus", eh? Da Merlyn and Ed show is fun, but they both stake out relatively extreme, un-nuanced positions. And then shout louder. Beavah

Yah, a copy of da letter from HQ. Issues have nuthin' to do with conservative social issues, but rather with financial transparency and support of "pet projects" over aid to National Scouting Organizations in the developing world. Sorta like UN funding issues, eh? Beavah ------- Date: October 17, 2007 To: Members of the World Scout Committee From: Wayne M. Perry International Commissioner Subject: Recent Decision of the Boy Scouts of America I am writing you today in my capacity as the International Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to inform you of an irrevocable decision the BSA made at its National Officers Meeting last night with respect to our participation in the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM). This decision was made after a very careful review of numerous issues that have evolved since early 2004. We are fully aware of the impact this decision will have on the BSA and WOSM; however, it has been determined that no other course of action is available to take. Let me begin by expressing how proud the BSA is of our long involvement in world Scouting. The BSAs support and participation in WOSM has enabled us to use our resources to aid the Scouting movement throughout the world. The movement has in turn enhanced the richness of the BSAs Scouting program. We sincerely believe we have helped make a difference and hopefully look forward to doing so again soon. Perhaps a brief summary of our financial commitment to world Scouting can help frame the issues at hand. The most recent audited financial statements of the World Scout Bureau (WSB) dated September 5, 2007, shows that the BSA contributed 39.04 percent of the fees collected by the WSB. This 39.04 percent the BSA contributed does not include the some $2.5 million (USD) that the BSA, its donors, and its benefactors made in special grants to the WSB, its regional offices, and selected National Scout Organizations (NSOs) during this past year. Nor does the amount in fees paid include the large sums that were donated to the World Scout Foundation (WSF) by BSA Scouters, which were made as a result of the direct encouragement of the BSA. Additionally, the BSA continued to make program support materials available to selected NSOs at no cost. The financial commitment made by the BSA outlined above also does not include the extensive time and financial commitments made by so many BSA volunteers and professionals who willingly attend and participate in the various task force and committee meetings of WOSM at the world, regional, or NSO level. BSA volunteers both give their time and pay their own way to these meetings (BSA volunteers do not receive travel or expense reimbursement from WOSM or the BSA). They do this out of a deep and personal commitment to WOSM. Clearly, the BSA is by far the largest single financial contributor to WOSM of any member NSO, and we have an obligation to be certain these combined resources are utilized properly. Therein lies the core issue. In return for these commitments, the BSA asks that the funds we provide to the WSB are (1) spent with a view of supporting the NSOs especially NSOs in lesser developed countries to grow and deliver a quality Scouting program to a maximum number of youth and (2) spent in an efficient manner with appropriate and transparent financial controls. The BSA has reluctantly come to the conclusion that under the current processes and leadership of the WSB, neither of these two goals has been nor will be achieved. Therefore, the BSA has decided that it will suspend the payment of any and all funds (fees, grants, and task force support) to the WSB and its regional offices until the current Secretary General is replaced and appropriate processes instituted to restore the WSB to what we believe is its core mission in aiding NSOs to grow and deliver a quality Scouting program. (The BSA will continue to provide direct support to selected NSOs.) Decisions of the WSB seem to be made with little regard to their effect on often- struggling NSOs. The WSB has focused on other priorities such as the World Scout Scientific Congress and its proposed new $14 million World Scout Center building in Geneva, but it has not completed its 2007/2008 budget for at least three months into the current fiscal year (which is better than last years budget, which was finalized five months into the fiscal year). The recently disclosed multimillion-dollar WSB investment in the Picarquin Training and Events Center (dubbed a World Scout Center) has adversely impacted the Interamerica Region Office and the NSOs it is charged to serve. Scout use at the Picarquin Training and Events Center represents only 7 percent of the use (on a revenue basis) of the center. The recently released report on Picarquin by the WOSM Audit Committee discloses that Picarquins ongoing operations result in a significant annual loss to the Interamerica Region and that a profit will not be feasible under the current financial structure of Picarquin. We disagree with the Secretary Generals belief that Picarquin makes money and disagree with the desire to construct a hotel on the site (with the area around the site being rezoned as a proposed gambling center) as a way of salvaging his decisions. The recently proposed tax of 7.5 percent on the income from future world Scout jamboree fees as a means of raising money would make it more difficult for youth to attend future jamborees. There also appears to be no need for the WSBs effort to license World Scout Centers. The impact these two items will have on struggling NSOs is likely negative at best. We at the BSA are not at a loss for opportunities for using our resources. The BSA has many places to utilize its resources to further the Scouting movement. We have a renewed focus on serving disadvantaged youth in the USA and around the world, which can effectively utilize the dollars we have previously contributed to the WSB. Despite these competing needs, the BSA would like nothing more than to resume the financial support for WOSM. Under current conditions, it is just not possible for us to be responsible stewards of the funds we have been entrusted with by the generous supporters of the BSA to entrust any further monies to the WSB. We have thought hard and appreciate the magnitude of our decision. If the situation is not resolved, the BSA would be suspended from WOSM late next year for nonpayment of fees and thus would not be eligible to attend the upcoming world Scout jamboree in Sweden, the world Scout conference in Brazil, or other WOSM-sanctioned events. If this were to be the case, our Scouts and leaders would surely miss the opportunity for a wonderful interaction with Scouts and leaders from around the world; however, in light of the legal and practical circumstances faced by charitable organizations in the USA today, we have no other choice. Like others that share these concerns, we look forward to working together with our fellow NSOs to bring the WSB back on track. We welcome the sharing of ideas on how to achieve this task, but we hope you understand that new leadership at the WSB is a prerequisite to the restoration of funding by the BSA.

I knew Merlyn would be da first to break in on this thread! B

Whether asking a lad to cook an edible omelette was adding to da requirements? Or perhaps there should be a percentage requirement on how much of the omelette is edible... Whether Professional Scouters are worth it... Whether troops that do any cross-country travel are really violating da G2SS Age Appropriate Rules - "Keep to the Code!" - or whether we should "Hang the Code! They're more like guidelines anyway! Arrrhhh!" (just caught Pirates of the Caribbean again with my granddaughter ) We're just knot ever goin' to get away from it, eh? B

I'd say yeh just did, eolesen! But in keepin' with the spirit of the sidebar commentary, I'd suggest excerpting a few phrases as examples and then offering your expert commentary on how they detract from the substance of the argument. Might be edumacational for everyone dat way! B

I've told you this before Ed, but I know you can't learn things. The ACLU *DID* sue to remove *BOTH* nativity scenes *AND* menorahs. The *COURTS* decided that menorahs were not religious symbols. Here I think Merlyn is referring to County of Allegheny v. ACLU, where the ACLU did in fact take both a creche and a menorah on public property to court. The appeal went all the way to SCOTUS, so it's hard to argue that the ACLU didn't pursue it vigorously. The menorah was allowed because it was part of a bigger display which included a Christmas tree. There have been a whole mess of these silly holiday decorations cases, though, so it's quite possible Ed is referring to a different one. B

No public school can legally charter a BSA unit that discriminates on the basis of religion, because public schools can't do that, even if the administration wants to discriminate. It isn't up to the school, since they cannot practice religious discrimination. Yah, Merlyn likes this claim, but let's be clear here. To my knowledge, a case like this has never been decided by a court that I'm aware of, nor by formal action of a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. Most of us, including da BSA, presume it to be likely, or at least recommend against such charters so as to avoid legal headaches for the sponsor. But erickelly65 is correct, eh? This is properly the choice of the sponsoring public school, and not the BSA. Faulting the BSA for it is a bit odd. In fact, a public school board or state educational agency has every right if they so choose to charter a BSA program, and then to defend that position in court if challenged by someone with standing to challenge it. And courts sometimes weigh the benefits of such public-private partnerships against the relative risk of church-state entanglement - as in the case with allowing public school vouchers for religious schools. So it's not completely clear what a ruling would be if challenged, but it is clear that it's the school's choice. To say anything else is to infringe on the rights of the People through their elected representatives. School boards can (and sometimes do) deliberately choose to be test cases. They also routinely make cost-benefit determinations about regulatory matters. Their choice, not the BSA's. And the BSA should no more be faulted for it than any of the many other groups, agencies, and lobbies that offer services to or make requests of public bodies. Beavah