Charter pulled

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, who I think knows better, says:

 

The GSUSA doesn't admit boys as members. That's discrimination! The BSA doesn't admit girls! That's discrimination! What's the difference!

 

Um, I think the difference is that that's only one "g" in common. And it's the least controversial of the 3 "g"s, precisely because both organizations exist. Though, I guess that in the case of the GSUSA, that "g" stands for "guys." If the other 2 "g"s were resolved, you'd never hear another word about that "g."

 

[dan]

Merlyn Leroy

Lets try this.

Is it your opinion that the 16 Scouts from Venture Crew 488, are better off now that they are not part of the BSA?

If you believe they are better off, please tell me why, because it sure seems like a lose lose situation to me.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

dan writes:

Is it your opinion that the 16 Scouts from Venture Crew 488, are better off now that they are not part of the BSA?

If you believe they are better off, please tell me why, because it sure seems like a lose lose situation to me.

 

I think everyone would be better off disassociating themselves from an organization as dishonest and discriminatory as the BSA, so, yes, I think they ARE better off.

 

If you think it's a lose-lose situation, perhaps you should complain to the BSA for not renewing the Crew's charter and cutting off all those kids.

[Fat Old Guy]

"If you can find a GSUSA unit "owned and operated" by a government agency, sure; otherwise, the GSUSA, being a private organization, can do what it likes. "

 

Can it? Not really. That's why "men's clubs" came under fire twenty years ago. I believe that the Supremes said that an organization can only discriminate if that discrimination is central to the organization's mission or message. Consequently, the KKK can exclude blacks but the YMCA cannot.

 

In any case, you stated that you knew of military regulations that prohibited private organizations from operating on military bases. If that's true, why are there so many Girl Scout troops on military bases.

 

 

[Bob White]

Its bad enough the BSA gets misrepresented around here let's not start on the Girl Scouts as well.

 

It would really be swell if folks took some time to get some facts.

 

There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group. The Girl Scouts do not use a chartering organization system. All Girl Scout units are owned by the Girl Scouts. They just meet at various locations, they are not owned by the location.

 

Sheesh!

Bob White

 

[NJCubScouter]

Bob says:

 

It would really be swell if folks took some time to get some facts.

 

I agree. (See below.)

 

There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group. The Girl Scouts do not use a chartering organization system. All Girl Scout units are owned by the Girl Scouts. They just meet at various locations, they are not owned by the location.

 

The second, third and fourth sentences above are absolutely correct, and are what I already said. The first sentence is NOT true. Organizations do sponsor Girl Scout troops, but (as I also already said), the relationship is not the same as the CO-unit relationship in Boy Scouting. The sponsor does not own the unit. The exact nature of the relationship is flexible and is agreed to between the troop and the sponsor, within council and national guidelines. Here is the form one council uses as the agreement to be signed by a sponsor:

 

http://www.gsvsc.org/forms/troopsponsoragree.pdf

 

Here is a different, more elaborate one:

 

http://www.gsgv.org/pdf/2235A.PDF

 

And here, from the archives of this very web site, is a discussion that basically confirms everything I said:

 

http://www.scouter.com/archives/Scouts-L/199309/0258.asp

 

Sheesh!

 

I agree. (See above.)

 

[acco40]

Now Bob, you know better than to confuse half the posters on this forum with facts! Shame on you!

[NJCubScouter]

Oops, I did it again.

 

I said:

 

I agree. (See above.)

 

I meant to say:

 

I agree. (See above.)

 

Let's see how THAT comes out.

 

[Laurie]

I have to re-read the thread title to remind myself what this thread is really about. I may be new, but one thing is clear:

 

Those who are part of the BSA care deeply about it, its reputation, and particularly about the boys--even when they disagree with policies. Those who are not part of the BSA do not act supportive of the BSA, so to expect them to feel bad for the boys...well, that's asking a bit much, isn't it. Seriously, I love the BSA and resent the implications and even direct comments that we are somehow hateful, teaching hatred or bigotry, are lawbreakers, etc. I particularly like when a Boy Scout, a younger boy--not us old Scouters -- chimes in. Let us not forget that they are watching us here too.

 

While I respect differing points of view, I use this particular forum to discuss issues so that I can better understand the BSA--not so that I can find fault with it. Shall those of us in the BSA remind one another to use care, even in the heated issues? I say this kindly, but that's kind of hard to see in type

[Fat Old Guy]

" I use this particular forum to discuss issues so that I can better understand the BSA--not so that I can find fault with it."

 

If some one had not found fault with the Roman Catholic Church and expressed that on paper, it would still be selling indulgences and most of the world would be Papists.

[dan]

Laurie

Merlyn has written in the past that he does not want to destroy the BSA, just change it. I do not believe him. Which I why I asked him if he thought the 16 scouts where better off now. His answer has made up my mind. He wants to destroy it just like www.scoutingforall.org (which he has pointed us to before) if he was trying to change it with scoutlike ways I would have a little respect for him.

 

[dsteele]

The one question I haven't seen asked on this thread that I will ask now is:

 

If the military can not charter BSA units on the basis of anti-discrmination, how can it have a "Don't ask don't tell policy" about homosexuality? How can it have maximum weight and minimum height requirements?

 

I submit that it can not and therefore, by being a practitioner of discrimination, is -- by law -- allowed to discriminate.

 

DS

[slontwovvy]

Merl, I'll ask you one more time--please, share your opinions on the questions. I can see the relevance in them, and I'd be willing to bet many other posters can as well--they show a pattern, they are fairly closely related.

 

I have to wonder when you're unwilling to share your opinion on a few topics, and I have to wonder when you think the world would be better off without the Boy Scouts. Let's see, millions of hours of community service, training in self-discipline, respect for the outdoors, citizenship, and fitness, a chance for the less privileged to rise above their condition, and so much more...can't see any good in that...

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

dsteele, there is no federal legislation prohibiting the military from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation (or height, weight, etc). The federal government can't discriminate on the basis of religion due to both legislation and the constitution, which is why the ACLU is suing the DoD over BSA charters; the lawsuit only concerns religious discrimination.

 

slontwovvy, I keep telling you, you haven't bothered to ASK me what MY opinions are, and I see no reason I should defend positions YOU'VE made up for me to defend. That's just stupid.

[slontwovvy]

Hmm, I guess the whole, "please, share your opinions on the questions" must not have been too clear. I know that could have been hard for some people to understand. (sarcasm)