Philadelphia Says BSA's Land Use in Jeopardy

[NJCubScouter]

Merlyn, contrary to the impression created by your slicing and dicing of my words, not once in this thread have I said what any government should do. Never did I suggest that the "middle ground" should ignore the rights of atheist kids. I frankly don't know what the middle ground would be. I just wish there were one.

 

I'll pick out one example of your mischaracterizations:

 

You seem to think that, if the BSA changes its policies to agree with what you consider to be the "true principles of scouting", that such government support should be allowed, even if your "true principles" still result in atheists being excluded.

 

That actually is the opposite of what I think, and what I said. On religion, I think the BSA cannot change its policy of excluding an avowed atheist who refuses to say the Oath and Law, EVEN IF IT MEANS LOSING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT. That is what I meant by "so be it."

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Here is what you had said earlier:

 

The way I resolve this, at least for myself, is that I suspect that if the BSA had made the "gay thing" a non-issue by dropping the ban or permitting local option, then many government entities might have "looked the other way" when it came to the "atheism thing." What the federal courts would have done, I can't say. And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues.

 

The only way I can interpret your paragraph in the context of your original message, is that, if the BSA did not exclude gays but excluded atheists, and some governments continued to give the BSA special breaks like free use of public property by deliberately turning a blind eye to the BSA's religious discrimination, that would seem to be OK with you.

 

The reason I say that seems to be OK with you, is due to the way you say "The way I resolve this, at least for myself..." and that you describe the above as your "solution". You weren't merely speculating on what would happen to such government deals if the BSA admitted gays and excluded atheists, you also indicated that you would find such an arrangement acceptable.

 

Now, I actually agree with what you apparently speculate; if the BSA admitted gays and excluded atheists, I'm sure many government bureaucrats WOULD continue to give the BSA special deals. But I don't say it's a way to resolve the situation, or call it a solution, because that would suggest some degree of approval.

[NJCubScouter]

Merlyn, I suppose that part of my earlier post was not very well written on my part. Maybe the fact that I put "solution" in quotation marks should have been a clue. It also does not excuse your twisting and chopping the words of my later post (which I do stand by completely) to try to make them mean something they don't mean.

 

I'll let someone else argue with you now.

[evmori]

If you discriminate against me I'll discriminate against you. This creates a vicious cycle!

 

KKK, NAMBALA, NAACP. Makes no difference. It is still discrimination. The only difference with the BSA stance is the supreme court said the BSA can legally discriminate.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[LovetoCamp]

I shudder to the very core of my being when I see the letters nambla. When I'm done shuddering, my resolve is firmer and my will is steeled knowing what's out there and knowing we have to stay the course and fight the good fight. Grrrrrrrrr

[LovetoCamp]

I, Trail Pounder, vow to begin raising 10 times the money I have raised and have been responsible for raising in the past and donating it to District and Council funds.

[packsaddle]

Ed, at the risk of playing with technicalities, I thought the significance of the Supreme Court decision was to affirm that BSA was a private organization. The decision to discriminate is BSA's not the Supreme Court's.

 

But to try to address the discrimination concept again, here goes.

It is my impression that Merlyn supports the notion that government (taxpayer) resources should not be expended in a discriminatory manner, nor should they be expended in a manner that supports discrimination by others. Some others of us agree with that notion. (Do you disagree?)

 

The disagreement seems to occur at the second level. Can public resources be expended to support (subsidize) private organizations that DO discriminate on a basis that the government would not be allowed to? Or to put it differently, if the government helps fund private organizations that discriminate in a manner that would be illegal for the government, has the government supported discrimination? (done an end run?) Don't answer that yet.

 

Disregarding the 'end run' thing, some of us seem to think removal of discrimination to a secondary party somehow excuses government's involvement. Others see it as something illegal and the courts agree.

The principle is simple, if government supports (subsidizes) an organization that disciminates in a manner that would be illegal for the government, the government is (at that secondary level) illegally discriminating. The remedy is to stop the support (subsidy, government handout).

 

The decision by a government to invoke that remedy is merely that. It does not prohibit BSA from continuing as before.

Another way to look at it is that government subsidies are similar to welfare handouts. Because BSA discriminates in a manner that government is not allowed, BSA merely must pay its way without the government handout.

BSA seems to be complaining as if it has lost a welfare entitlement. BSA must have known this would be the outcome of their successful court battle. BSA should accept their victory and pony up the private funds to keep the program going. BSA has entered the real, private world of the market and competition. BSA should get over it and on with business.

[evmori]

This wide stuff is annoying!

 

I don't disagree. But if I was a Philly resident I would be upset that they are discriminating against the BSA.

 

How many other organizations that discriminate does the city of Philly support?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

You guys are talking about wide stuff. What wide stuff? I see no differences at all.

[NJCubScouter]

Packsaddle, when I look at this thread it has 2 pages. The second page is formatted the same as every other page in this forum. On the first page, however, the "message screen" -- the actual block where the messages appear -- is about twice as wide as it usually is. It is so wide that on my monitor, the right-hand edge of each message is not visible. The column that usually appears on the right side of the screen -- with Join Scouter.com, Site News and the drawing of Baden-Powell -- is not visible at all unless I scroll over to the right, in which case I of course lose what is on the left side of the screen. I can read everything, I just have to scroll back and forth a bit.

 

I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. It is one of those glitches that happens on web sites sometimes. I think the owner of this site does an excellent job keeping things "in order" and the one time I made a suggestion by e-mail about how the site could be made slightly easier to navigate, and the change was made almost instantly. This thing about the wide screen was just something I noticed and mentioned in passing just because it looked unusual.

[littlebillie]

"how many other organizations...?" well, if they support the GSUSA, please consider the following, from http://www.girlscouts.org/adults/beliefs.html

 

=================================================

 

We, the members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America, united by a belief in God and by acceptance of the Girl Scout Promise and Law,... Do dedicate ourselves to the purpose of inspiring girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service that they may become happy and resourceful citizens.

 

We believe that the motivating force in Girl Scouting s a spiritual one.

 

We affirm that the Girl Scout Movement shall ever be open to all girls and adults who accept the Girl Scout Promise and law.

 

Preamble of the Constitution of Girl Scouts of the USA

 

==================================================

 

Since I am NOT aware of any atheist challenge to the Girl Scout credo at the SCOTUS level - the Girl Scouts leave "the interpretation of spirituality to each individual and the family" - I just wonder if their OFFICIAL stance, as stated above, is enough to warrant Mervyn's attention?

 

Frankly, I don't see the foregoing as that much different from district officials offering an Eagle candidate this possibility: "Mother Nature would be acceptable [as a Higher Power], says Brad Farmer, executive of the Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts." from THAT

recent ruckus. The only difference I can see is lack of a completed court challenge.

 

So - does Phillie support those pro-God Girl Scouts??? And if so, what does it all mean?

 

 

[SM406]

I agree with packsaddle. Most of the entitlements from various levels of government to the BSA that are coming under scrutiny now, where granted long before the issues of atheism and homosexuality became mainstream. Rather than succumb to pressures to change its policy (guaranteed by the Supreme Court) in order to retain some clear advantages (in the present view of righteousness), on a case by case basis, the BSA should abandoned those entitlements. What this means for those of us that support the BSA and its policies is as Trail Pounder has said .. vow to begin raising 10 times the money I have raised and have been responsible for raising in the past and donating it to District and Council funds. If we did this then we wont need government handouts (I am not convinced we need them anyway).

 

SM406

 

[dsteele]

I'm not going to delve into argument over stuff I can't control.

 

But, from reading the discussion, I thought I would share with you the general feeling of most professional scouters during the Supreme Court case. It was "Either way the decision goes, we're going to take a hit."

 

We're taking a hit. So Philadelphia loses it's council office. San Diego loses Balboa Island. United Way pulls funding.

 

Enough people have enough love of this organization to make it continue to happen without abandoning our values. If I am wrong about that, the Boy Scouts of America will no longer continue to be the organization that I grew up in and dedicated my life to.

 

I feel very strongly that if the Boy Scouts of America ever changes it's belief that it's members must beleive in a higher power, I will resign my commission (same as quitting my job) and move on as best I can. I support all the membership standards of the Boy Scouts of America, but I take the stance on God very personally. God is not an option.

 

DS

[Eamonn]

Hey Dave

Sometimes you get it just Right.

This is one of them there times.

Great post.

Heck We Can both quit.

Eamonn

[dsteele]

Thanks for the support, Eamonn. It means a lot.

 

I don't intend to quit the BSA and get very angry at the likes of those who would have us ignore the Lord our God -- in whatever form we may believe.

 

I'm not going to quit the BSA and I don't believe Eamonn will either. The BSA isn't about to quit us by abandoning God. I don't know what Merlyn and his ilk (doesn't that sound like a slimy word?) want -- but he isn't going to get it from me.

 

Try saying the Boy Scout Oath without Duty to God or the Law without reverent and you'll find a big hunk missing.

 

As I said before, God is not an option.

 

DS