Scouts' $1/year Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional

[NJCubScouter]

I made a factual error in my previous post, and I just tried to edit it out and couldn't, even though it was only about five minutes old. The BSA did NOT bring the lawsuit in question, I must have mixed it up with another lawsuit involving public facilities. But I do think the decision was a correct one.

 

I also agree with CubsRgr8's statement that this lawsuit is not about the BSA's membership requirements but rather is about "the city's preferential treatment of a religious organization." That is exactly right. That is basically what Merlyn has been saying, by the way. I have to wonder, though, if CubsRgr8 or anybody else actually accepts the definition of the BSA as a "religious organization." It is an organization that encourages "religion" and in a sense demands it of its members, and it proclaims that its values are "faith-based," but I have never seen the BSA describe itself as a "religious organization." The Declaration of Religious Principals says that the BSA is "non-sectarian" in matters of religion. I am not sure how you can have a non-sectarian "religious organization." Unfortunately, as I have posted a number of times, in relation to the "gay issue," the BSA is in fact behaving like a religious organization, as it is demanding that its members follow the precepts of one particular group of religions and denominations, as opposed to the precepts of other faiths that are significantly represented in its membership. This is in direct violation of the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles.

[littlebillie]

"I remain puzzled by littlebillie and others within scouting who would open the doors to atheists. Why does BSA exist? "

 

Well, from the perspective of the faithful, if the BSA, by exposing atheist youth to faith, could save even one soul, or re-affirm one wavering believer, isn't that worth the doing?

 

Kids at risk - aren't these some of the ones would would most benefit from the program?

 

How can one say, "let's turn our collective back on these kids"?

 

Even if all we end up with is a more ethical atheist - well, that's a step in a better direction, too.

 

 

 

 

[Yak_Herder]

NJ, you made more than one "factual error", my friend. For example, you stated:

"On the gay issue, it's a bunch of people, myself included, who want to IMPROVE the BSA -- and by the way, we're right."

 

You're right? Thats an assertion that demands a demonstration of proof. Please provide it.

 

In an earlier post you brought up the infamous nine councils. There is more to the story than your presented. While those signing the petition held significant positions of authority within their respective councils (well, eight of them did anyway), the job description of those positions do not include serving as some sort of elected delegate to a group that determines national policy. They appointed themselves to that task and assumed authority that was not theirs. Furthermore, isnt the fact that only nine councils relevant? Last time I checked there were several hundred councils. Frustrated by being in a decided minority (both in and out of Scouting) and with the SCOTUS decision at play, they got together and cooked up a rather un-Scout-like media stunt for the annual meeting held in Boston (not coincidentally one of the nine councils). To a degree it worked. In the end they did more harm than good. We saw a replay of the same in Philadelphia (again, another of the nine councils). It didnt happen in New Orleans last year (what do you know, not one of the nine councils). Watch for some renegade to try it again next year in Chicago (yes, another of the nine councils).

 

All of these stunts amount to nothing more than a red-herring. Unfortunately, the media has a greater interest in a hot story than facts and fail to understand this. It must be kept firmly in mind that local councils dont make these decisions. The petition is meaningless. The National Executive Board makes decisions like these for a number of very strong reasons. Here are two:

1. National issues require a national solution or the integrity of the organization suffers. Denying this invalidates the justification for a national organization. Defining and protecting the public image of Scouting is very much the responsibility of the national council.

2. Local council boards are made up of individuals whose decision-making process is dominated by the need to balance a budget. Financial pressures have a way of corrupting the better angels of our natures. The National Executive Board is made up of representatives of the organizations who sponsor Scouting. They are, in effect, Scouting. They, and only they own the right to define this policy. If it were to be kicked down to a council level, then the CORs must be the ones to make the decision, not the local council committee and certainly not one guy from the committee going off on his own.

 

Two opinions about the motivations for those wishing change have been acknowledged in this thread. One suggests that the goal to change Scouting to allow homosexual membership is an attempt to destroy Scouting. I find that to be far-fetched. Another suggests it is a noble effort to improve Scouting. I dont buy that either.

 

The purpose behind the initiative to change the BSAs membership policies does not take a genius to decipher. The purpose is very, very clear. Pro-gay organizations targeted the BSA, not because they were interested in merely gaining membership, but through challenging the BSA publicly they were able to garner a great deal of media attention. This is the real prize. It was a no lose proposition. If they gained membership status, those few who were truly interested in the change for the sake of the change would be happy and they would gain some momentum in the public eye. If they lost their bid, they still walk away with a considerable amount of exposure and spin it to where they would look like the victim.

 

The BSA was a pawn in a big game. No one who supports what was done can convince me that they have the best interests of Scouting at heart. You cannot serve in a position of leadership within the BSA, support these measures and claim to be trustworthy. You cannot contribute to the media circus and claim to be loyal. You cannot be an avowed homosexual in Scouting and claim to be obedient. Without these qualities of character, you may claim membership in Scouting, but you are not a much of what being a Scout stands for.

 

[CubsRgr8]

Merlyn, BSA does not require belief in a monotheistic God, just belief in God. Why would you conclude that polytheists should be kicked out?

 

NJCubscouter, I'd say religious means promoting religion, either specifically or generally. My dictionary also gives reverent as a synonym for religious. On those grounds, I agree with Judge Jones that BSA is a religious organization, but not with his ruling.

 

littlebillie, I presume that you're okay with BSA requiring leaders to accept belief in God, since you didn't object. But what about a youth who doesn't have belief? There's two parts to my response.

 

First, a youth's ability to deny or confirm the existence of God just isn't there until he reaches a certain maturity. A 12 year old scout telling me "God does (not) exist" is no different than the same youth saying "I am (not) a Socialist". Which is the whole point of BSA! It exists, and we leaders strive, to instill in youth the values of the Scout Oath and Law, precisely at the age when youth are forming the core value system they will take with them through their life journey!

 

Second, when that youth is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to make his definitive public statement on the existence of God, he is also mature enough to understand that there are consequences. Furthermore, I maintain that if said scout denies the existence of God, he should not remain in BSA because he is no longer an appropriate role model for younger scouts.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

CubsRgr8 writes

Merlyn, BSA does not require belief in a monotheistic God, just belief in God. Why would you conclude that polytheists should be kicked out?

 

You just said it; belief in "gods" is not the same as belief in "god". Also, the BSA has attempted to define "acceptable" religious views in terms of A supreme power of the universe; if someone believes in two gods of equal power, neither is supreme. The BSA's religious requirements seem to require monotheism specifically, which would exclude polytheists.

[slontwovvy]

littlebillie--last time I checked, Catholics were Christians. In fact, they still are Christians.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Pretty good for an atheist.

 

Ed

[littlebillie]

slontwovvy,

 

"Catholics were Christians. In fact, they still are Christians. "

 

Yes, I know. And actually, so are Mormons. I notice you leave them out of your response - which is part of the point. Regardless. I've heard SOOO many Christian kids say they're against Catholicism because Catholics "believe in the Pope and not Jesus". If you're not aware that there's a division of faith and principle there, please accept that there is (otherwise, just for example, there would not have been so much commentary thereon re: Kennedy's Presidency).

 

And it was this division that was the basis of my question - WILL the Catholics and Mormons be invited to take part in the warrior's new Crusades?

 

And if you still choose to rebut and rebuff, really, that's totally fine with me. And I'd add, good for YOU, for not being a knee-jerk anti-Papist, btw. From my perspective, tho', you've still demonstrated the issue by the omission of the LDS in your response.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Meryln -- that's a very lawyerly reading of the religious principles and could make sense except that in practice BSA doesn't interpret it that way. Case in point was the atheist kid booted last year. The letters from BSA were pretty clear that just about any acknowledgement of God, god or gods would have gotten the kid off the hook.

 

I will grant you that in my opinion the trend in BSA is toward a less inclusive application of the religious principles. The membership rules, disallowing the Unitarians religious emblems and other policies seem to me to be nibbling at the religious principle without actually touching it. I would hate to see it, but I would not be surprised to see some "clarifications" issued that would tighten what is now a very broad principle. But again, that's just my opinion. Others may (and I'm sure will) disagree.

 

CubsRgr8 -- you make an excellent point, but I don't think we come to the same conclusions. For exactly the reasons you describe, I would hate to see any youth member booted for merely saying they are atheist or gay. Whenever we have a kid struggling with family or behavioral problems we, as Scouters always say, "but those are the boys who need Scouting the most!" Shouldn't a boy struggling with issues of faith or sexuality be given the same opportunities?

 

Of course we can all envision a worst case where a 17-year-old Scout is particularly outspoken in his beliefs and tries to influence others. That's something that could be handled on a local basis, up to and including revoking the boy's membership. But bottom line, I wouldn't want the same standards applied to youth members as adults. I don't know if the boys in Irving see it that way and are more lenient with youth members, but it seems that all the high-profile cases involve adults.

[slontwovvy]

I was not trying to be exclusive of the Mormon faith. I am familiar with the tenets of Catholicism (I am Catholic) and many Protestant denominations. However, I do not have a great understanding of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Thus, I am unwilling to misrepresent their beliefs. It wasn't out of any desire to exclude, just of a desire to get everything right.

[Rooster7]

But bottom line, I wouldn't want the same standards applied to youth members as adults.

 

Sooooooo, let's open another can of worms. Yes, at first glance, I agree with this statement for the same reasons you stated (they need Scouting the most). However, when I think about the other boys and the risks involved, I have to disagree. The kid in Kansas comes to mind rather quickly...the one that was raped by an older boy sharing a tent with him at summer camp. I know...homosexuals are not rapists. Let me present a question to all of the men on this board - Think back to when you were 16 or 17 (raging hormones, etc.)...Think of all of your male friends at that age, now ask yourself this question - If the BSA was coed and 17 year-old boys shared tents with 14/15 year-old girls, do you think seduction and/or rape would be a rare event or a common event? I'm not sure how many rapes would occur, but I guarantee you that those girls would experience many unwanted advances. If homosexuals are brought in the BSA, do you really believe that young boys are not going to be exposed to their advances? Please, let's blow all of this smoke out of the way and do a reality check.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Lythops]

Rooster7, given that I am a STRONG supporter of the BSA's current policies regarding girls and gays, my responses to your post may seem strange to you.

 

Point #1:

Most of the world has coed Scouting. Not having been associated with any of them directly I can not comment of the level of "teepee creaping" that goes on there, but I am confident they have ways of addressing it. Maybe not, but I personally feel that even with protective policies in place the risk remains far higher than the benefit.

 

That is not the only reason I have for opposing a coed Scouting program for Boy Scouting. I'm pretty pragmatic. Young men just get silly around girls. They lose their brains. I expect them to focus on what we are doing. Girls just seem to be too great a distraction for them to handle. As Scout leaders, we have enough to do just helping the young men in this world. We don't need the added complexity.

 

Point#2:

You asked, "If homosexuals are brought in the BSA, do you really believe that young boys are not going to be exposed to their advances?"

 

I assume you are talking about homosexual, adult leaders. In that case, we should all recognize that pedophilia and homosexuality are two different issues. There is no higher incidence of pedophilia among gays than heterosexuals. My morality opposes either, but I understand that linking the two both promotes a bad stereotype and obscures the solution. I oppose their membership based on a desire to promote a different ideal to the boys, not because I am afraid they will improperly approach a young man in the troop.

 

If you are posing the question with a gay young man in mind rather a leader, I would definitely agree with your inference. Other boys would almost certainly be "hit on".

 

I have had some experience trying to manage that situation within the troop and it offers no simple solution. The best interests of the young man and the others in the troop become very difficult to weigh out. In the end, it comes down to this: the young man must recognize the conflicting ideals and be committed to supporting the BSA in order to remain. A clear line must be drawn. Ultimately he has to want to become what the BSA is promoting or it is nothing more than a charade. This has to be explained carefully, compassionately and in detail. I haven't ever booted a boy out, but I have made it clear what the requirements are and presneted a choice. The only option given is to support the BSA demonstrating the loyalty and obedience we profess to teach or make a withdrawal.

 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for a boy that understands his personal ideals conflict with the organization's and values his personal integrity enough to leave the troop.

 

I have no respect for those who use Scouting as a stage to advance their own personal agenda.

[Fat Old Guy]

" If the BSA was coed and 17 year-old boys shared tents with 14/15 year-old girls, do you think seduction and/or rape would be a rare event or a common event? I'm not sure how many rapes would occur, but I guarantee you that those girls would experience many unwanted advances. "

 

How about how many boys would experience unwanted advances. Girls are pretty randy today.

[Rooster7]

Lythops,

 

My example, which talked about 17 year-old heterosexual boys sharing a tent with 14/15 year-old girls, was used as a comparison to demonstrate what might happen if 17 year-old homosexual boys were sharing a tent with 14/15 year-old boys. In short, yes I meant boys/Scouts, not Scouters/men. HOWEVER

 

While we seem to agree for the most part, I have to take issue with the following statements:

 

I assume you are talking about homosexual, adult leaders. In that case, we should all recognize that pedophilia and homosexuality are two different issues. There is no higher incidence of pedophilia among gays than heterosexuals.

 

This is simply not true. I have read the studies and pedophilia is much higher within the homosexual community than the heterosexual community. Believe me, you are falling victim to deliberate misinformation.

 

My morality opposes either, but I understand that linking the two both promotes a bad stereotype and obscures the solution. I oppose their membership based on a desire to promote a different ideal to the boys, not because I am afraid they will improperly approach a young man in the troop.

 

Dont think for a moment that they wouldnt approach your child. I know many heterosexual men who have turned their head to look at girls as young as their daughters. There is nothing special about homosexual men other than their perversion. Do you think these men are too moralistic and/or embarrassed to cross another line? Do they really care if society condones their behavior? Or, do they want to be accepted with impunity regardless of their behavior? If American society is dumb enough to accept homosexuality, the age barrier will be the next great frontier.

 

[slontwovvy]

Rooster, you are correct. What the media doesn't tell you! Through the entire Roman Catholic priest scandal, I was waiting for observers to call it what it was--a homosexual priest scandal, not a pedophile priest scandal. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children, while homosexuals are attracted to adolescent post-pubescent children. Many, if not most, of the abused children were adolescents at the time, not pre-pubescent children. Another reason why I agree with the BSA policies.