Are there any cases where the ACLU supported Scouts?

[acco40]

Merlyn, could you enlighten us on the St. Louis Special School District program mentioned in your link? I think it is a wonderful program - classroom scouting and venturing for special needs children.

 

Do you have more information? Are the children Scouts by the strict definition? Is it open to all students? If so, that is GREAT! This could be a shining example of how Scouting aids all!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

acco40 writes:

Merlyn, could you enlighten us on the St. Louis Special School District program mentioned in your link? I think it is a wonderful program - classroom scouting and venturing for special needs children.

 

Well, it's their web page, just look around. They've got lots of information there, including their non-discrimination notice:

http://www.ssd.k12.mo.us/about_SSD/PublicNotices/non_discrim.html

Notice that their nondiscrimination policy applies to all matters concerning education programs and services, and that it includes both religion and sexual orientation, so both atheist and gay students must be allowed into their school's Classroom Scouting and Classroom Venturing programs.

 

You can also look at the St. Louis Area Council's side at

http://www.stlbsa.org/Districts/Special%2bNeeds/

It's interesting that Classroom Venturing is described as an "inclusive program".

 

Do you have more information? Are the children Scouts by the strict definition?

 

As far as I can tell, yes. For the Classroom Scouting, it's a joint effort between Boy & Girl Scouts. They also have camporees at Beaumont Scout Reservation.

 

The St. Louis Area page that explains about Classroom Venturing starts with the Venturing logo and the opening paragraph is taken from scouting.org's page about Venturing.

 

If these aren't actual Scouting and Venturing programs, they've got very confusing names.

 

Is it open to all students? If so, that is GREAT! This could be a shining example of how Scouting aids all!

 

That's the big question, isn't it?

 

This program was started nearly 20 years ago, before the Boy Scouts started publically kicking out atheists and gays and saying that no Scout unit could allow them to join (even if it was OK with the Scout unit and its charter partner).

 

However, I don't know of any Scouting or Venturing program that allows atheists and gays with the OK of BSA national.

 

The superintendent of the Special School District says atheists can join; I'm waiting to hear back from the St. Louis Area Council to see if they say the same thing (and I'll see if BSA national also says it's OK).

 

[Hunt]

A few points on this:

1. The ACLU has in fact taken on cases, on principle, that many of their own members found personally repugnant--the Skokie case is a prime example. I think that shows that the ACLU really believes in its principles, and I respect them for that.

2. That being said, I think a look at the ACLU's website reveals a pretty liberal outlook, in its selection of issues to pursue. That's not too surprising.

3. But so what? If you don't like what the ACLU is doing, form, join, or support a group that is doing things with which you agree. There are plenty of them, including groups working against religious discrimination.

4. Some of us get annoyed by the ACLU, or Merlyn, etc., not because we think they're wrong, but because we know that technically they are right, but that their actions will mess up something that benefits many and harms few. This is how I feel, for example, about the guy who wants to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that technically he's right, but the vast majority of people, including me, just want him to go away (and note that he lost his case on a technicality--so I suspect the judiciary feels the same way). On a more mundane level, this is how some of us react when it is pointed out that Scouts can't do laser tag or paintball. It's how I feel when my kid points out that I'm going 5 miles over the speed limit.

[SR540Beaver]

The ACLU takes on a number of cases I don't like because they conflict with my values. That being said, I t hink most people are uninformed aboutthe ACLU. If you look at their website, you will find where they also took on cases in support of churches and religious organizations. Those are not controversial and therefore are not NEWS. We never hear about them. You know, the Constitution really was quite liberal for it's time and quite radical. Freedom to bear arms? Freedom to worship as you choose? The government not able to sanction an official state church? Freedom of speech? Those things were unheard of for the most part at their time. Disrespect the king and get your head lopped off. Not be a member of the official church and go to prison. Keep arms where you could rise up against the king's army and you could die for it. These freedoms that were guaranteed to the people were uneard of and not popular in their time to other world governments. The idea of allowing people the freedom of speech was as unpopular at that time as allowing a neo-Nazi organization to march thru a largely Jewish community is today. I like to think the writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. You notice that they didn't put qualifiers on the freedoms they guaranteed. They didn't say you have freedom of speech as long as you don't criticize the government. They didn't say you can have freedom of religion as long as you worship in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The ACLU observes the letter of the law. If the Constitution says freedom of speech, then it means freedon of speech even if it is a repugnant speech. They are duty bound to defend the Constitution even when it goes against our traditional values and sensibilities. I think the Founding Fathers would be glad that someone defends the Constitution and does not allow popular opinion to override it. Just my two cents.

[NJCubScouter]

Great post SR540Beaver.

[packsaddle]

Ditto. (sorry NJ)

[NWScouter]

Beaver, I agree also. Great post.

[Strawberry Switchblade]

Forsooth.

[Sylvar]

The "Classroom Scouting" program mentioned looks to be a "Learning for Life" Program. Learning for life, to my understanding is wholly owned and operated by BSA. You are correct that LFL does not have the same membership restrictions as BSA. LFL programs can feed both BSA and GSA units.

 

Shane

 

[cliffgolden]

 

I believe the program in St Louis is probably a Learning for Life program.

 

Learning for Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BSA. Here is their website...

 

http://www.learning-for-life.org/lfl/

 

I think the BSA has tried to be inclusive and better serve a changing society by creating a new program called Learning for Life (LFL). This program has inclusive membership so atheists and avowed homosexuals can be members as well.

 

Their traditional programs of Cubs Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturing still maintain the past membership policies. The BSA works with sponsors such as major churches to support traditional values.

 

Overall, the BSA serves everyone through one program or another. There remain those that continue relentless attacks upon the BSA.

 

As for the ACLU fighting against the BSA in Dales vs BSA, that SCOTUS decision was based upon the BSA's constitutional right of expressive association. Each side presented their case, both based on constitutional rights. Why would the ACLU side with one constitutional right over another?

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html

 

The media portrayed the case as being about the BSA winning the right to discriminate; rather than about the BSA defending their right to expressive association and preserving their expressed message to their membership.

 

YIS,

Cliff Golden

Scoutmaster Troop 33

DeKalb, Illinois

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

cliffgolden writes:

I believe the program in St Louis is probably a Learning for Life program.

 

The St. Louis program is Classroom Scouting and Classroom Venturing, and neither Scouting nor Venturing are under L4L. I've called the St Louis council, and they seem to think there is something that needs to be "worked out" with the Special School District. If it was a L4L program, there wouldn't be any problem to work out.

 

To give you an idea how clueless the higher-ups at the BSA are, when Learning for Life first started back in 1991 as an offshoot/replacement for their in-school scouting program, even though it was designed to be an in-school program, the BSA still tried to restrict leadership to heterosexual theists; see their Aug 14, 1991 position statement:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/untitled115.html

Those restrictions didn't last.