A President of the United States not endorsing the BSA

[VentureScoutNY]

From the BSA website:

 

"One of the causes contributing to the success of the Boy Scouts of America has been the thoughtful, wholehearted way in which each President of the United States since William Howard Taft in 1910 has taken an active part in the work of the movement. Each served as Honorary President during his term in office."

 

 

With all of the recent controversies over gay marriage and religion that has swept the nation, will they eventually lead to a President of the United States not endorsing a program that may be conservative in its ideals? Many of the ACLUs attacks on the BSA include these issues.

 

In my opinion, I do not see any time in the near future when a President does not endorse the BSA. I would also hate to think of a time when this country does not apperciate the greatness of a Program we are all apart of and respect. But who really knows? Fifty years ago intergration of public institutions and schools also seemed to be a far off matter...

 

What do all of you think?

[Proud Eagle]

If it was purely a matter of ideals, and not perceptions, I would expect to see such a move the next time a left leaning Democrat is elected.

 

However, opposing the BSA would be like opposing the Army, or opposing the Daughters of the American Revolution, or opposing the Catholic Church. It is something politicians might be willing to do on the idealogical level, but they would not do because of how radical such a thing would be perceived as being.

 

It would be sort of like a politician coming out against apple pie, July 4th fireworks, and barbecue. Even if they thought those things were bad for some sort of health, safety, or idealogical reason, they wouldn't come straight out and say they opposed those things. The political impact of coming out against those things, because of the way the public perceives them, is far greater than coming out on the same subject in some abstract way.

 

So while a politician might go so far as to call policies similar to those of BSA hateful, discriminatory, and bigoted, they will not speak out directly in any significant way against the BSA.

 

This is really all related to the fact that you can't quite trust what a politician says or does, because it is almost always motivated more by their desire to be re-elected/elected rather than any core beliefs they may potentially hold. There are certain politicians that totally abandon any real beliefs in favor of what is politically expedient, while others compromise to a lesser extent. It is truly rare to find a politician that always stands up for what they believe without any consideration for political fall out. However, I am somewhat reluctant to condemn politicians, because all humans are in some ways vulnerable to the temptations of power, with the exception of one who I believe already had unlimited power.

 

[Its Me]

A sitting president will not oppose the BSA while in office. At least not during my life time.

 

What will happen is the BSA will continue to be the target of very left leaning organizations which will force the BSA to draw an ever more descriptive stance on its conservative views. For example instead of presuming the BSA is religious based, the BSA will be forced to define what it means (religion-wise) to be a scout. Once established the left leaning organization then targets the definition on legal and constitutional grounds. These types of attack will continue to come, forcing the BSA to appear more conservative than it may actually be.

 

Eventually a candidate will emerge in the primaries and campaign against everthing conservative including the scouts. He will lose because his ultra left base will be too small to carry him.

 

Then the woodsman come out and kills the wolf. Or something like that.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Its Me)

[Tamegonit Arrowman]

The elite left, despite being very vocal, is actually in the minority...for now.

 

And for now, private organizations still have the freedom to keep out whomever they want.

 

TA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Proud Eagle writes:

...However, opposing the BSA would be like opposing the Army, or

opposing the Daughters of the American Revolution, or opposing the

Catholic Church.

 

In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow

Marian Anderson to sing at D.A.R. Constitution Hall because she was

black; first lady Elanor Roosevelt publically resigned from the DAR and

arranged for Marian Anderson to sing at the Lincoln Memorial instead.

 

Of course, being a private, discriminatory organization, the DAR was

within its rights; but their discrimination lost them a lot of public

support.

 

Here's her resignation letter:

 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/american_originals/eleanor.html

 

[evmori]

And, Merlyn, your point is ......................

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

You DID read where I quoted Proud Eagle, didn't you?

[evmori]

Yes I read it. And your point is ..............

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Apparently you missed the part where Proud Eagle said that politicians wouldn't publically come out against organizations like the BSA or the DAR; I posted a very well-known example of the first lady coming out very publically against the DAR for their discrimination.

[Rooster7]

I think Merlyns point is:

 

One dayshould the BSA continue to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, they will incur the wrath of progressive (i.e., liberal) moral leaders (such as Eleanor Roosevelt) and their supporters.

 

Of course his hopeful prediction is froth with folly. Heres why:

 

1) Liberal moral leader is an oxy-moron. Liberals dont lead, nor do they embrace morals. They pick and chose their stances based on the political climate of the day. In other words, the tail (i.e., the collective power of on-the-fringe political interest groups who are willing to sell their souls to achieve their narrow-minded ends) is wagging this unconscionable dog.

 

2) Merlyn assumes that a significant number of folks will eventually agree with his twisted views and empower someone or group at a national level to implement this revolution. Its possible, but Im betting it wont be in the near future.

 

3) Eleanor Roosevelt was a great woman, and a progressive. However, if she was alive today, given the current leadership and platform of the Democratic Party, Im convinced that she would abandon that ship and swim for the GOP looking for some sense of sanity and goodness.

 

JMHO -

[evmori]

And based on that, Merlyn, you are trying to point out that someone will do the same against the BSA? Don't think so. Flawed analogy.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[acco40]

Guys, it is in the best interest of the BSA NOT to have a President endorse it. Think about it. Take off your ideological blinders. The BSA has maintained the stance that it is a private organization. The President should not endorse a private organization. Did Reagan endorse GM? Did Carter endorse Apple? Did Clinton endorse El Producto cigars? Congress should not charter a private organization. Tax dollars should not fund a private organization (no Chrysler references please). If the President is going to endorse corporations, stick to public organizations such as the Red Cross. The more a sitting President endorses the BSA, the more a court will view it as a public corporation.

[VentureScoutNY]

Acco:

 

The BSA has been endorsed though, since 1916 if I am correct?...by both the President of the United States and Congress. Are you saying we should sever ties?

[evmori]

Actually, I think Clinton endorsed Tipirello's!

[Rooster7]

acco40,

 

Unlike beauty, private enterprises are not in the eye of the beholder. What any President thinks or says about the BSA does not alter the organizations legal status. It is a private organization inspired and founded by American citizens and funded with private money. As a non-profit organization that serves the youth of this country, the federal government via Congress and the Office of the Presidency, has sung its praises. In some cases, the BSA has entered some mutually beneficial agreements with local, state, and federal agencies- the lease of the Fiesta Island aquatics center being an example. Regardless, even if Congress was to give the BSA grants unconditionally, the federal government could not legally declare the BSA a public entity. If that were to be the case, they could convert any privately owed property or organization to a publicly owed enterprise simply by giving the true owners some token amount of money.

 

The BSA has been a huge success and serves the youth of the entire nation in a significant way. However, this reality does not alter its legal status either. In fact, if the federal government were to ever use this pretence to claim eminent domain, it should scare the hell out of every major corporation. Because if the government can take ownership of a privately owed non-profit organization due to its broad success, then theres no reason they couldnt take control of privately owed for-profit businesses too using the same ridiculous argument.

 

We should dread the day Congress or the courts say otherwise Not because of any loss the BSA will suffer But because it will be a clear sign that we are no longer the free nation we thought ourselves to be. Many folks probably dont care much as to whether or not the federal government gets involved and starts dictating to the BSA and others. Thats truly sad, because these folks have no idea what our country is about- or rather what it once was about. It seems to me, the peoples of southern Europe and the Baltic states know and understand a bit more about freedom than a great many of Americans today. At least, they seem to treasure it more. Perhaps because they struggled and waited for so long to taste freedom, they know how easily it can be trampled and taken away.