Boy Scout troops in Europe have little trouble finding new sponsors

[fgoodwin]

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany Boy Scouts of America leaders in Europe say they are having little trouble finding new, private sponsors for their troops after a legal settlement ordered military units to sever official ties with the scouting program.

 

Scout masters and regional leaders said veterans organizations such as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and local unit booster clubs have stepped in as troop sponsors, Dan Adams, executive director of the BSAs Transatlantic Council, said Wednesday.

 

Weve got an incredible amount of support from the military structure here, said Adams.

 

In November, the Department of Defense told units not to sponsor Boy Scout or Cub Scout troops to comply with a legal settlement. The DOD settled with the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the direct government sponsorship of the Scouts because of the organizations requirement that troop members recite an oath of duty to God.

 

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=25923

[dsteele]

I'm heartened by the article in this thread and in the closed thread on the related matter.

 

I'm not surprised. After all, if the Soviet Union could not kill Scouting and Hitler couldn't warp it to match his twisted desires . . . I doubt very much a settlement with the ACLU will even make a ding.

 

Just food for thought.

 

Unc.

[fgoodwin]

I didn't realize the full article had already been posted under the "Stuffit" thread when I posted mine -- sorry about that.

[acco40]

This debate reminds me of what I saw on the news last night about the Alabamian who is parading the ten commandments (stone statuary) around the south. This is the same monument that was banned by the "feds" from the Alabama state house.

 

People sometimes forget what the actual debates are sometimes about - very few are "against" the Boys Scouts or the Ten Commandments but feel that the US government should not be in the "religious" business so to speak.

 

And, the nana, nana, nana attitude some exibit is nauseating. Just another reflection of the civility decline in our society.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[purcelce]

Troops at Scott AFB are going the same route as the TAC folks.

 

No interruption in the program, which was my main concern.

 

In my opinion they can take the lawsuit and stuff it also.

BSA will continue stronger than ever.

[johndaigler]

I don't think this is about the BSA, but about the USA.

 

Scouts won't be derailed or even dented (props to UG) by ACLU actions like this. The vast majority of Americans see Scouts in a truly positive light.

 

I think we should(and can)remain above feeling like the ACLU is either winning or losing some titanic battle against the BSA. If we accept the situation as a conflict then someone has to win and someone has to lose. It's like the red and blue states, if w

[fgoodwin]

We (Scouts & Scouters) didn't choose to make a fight out of this -- the ACLU can stop this anytime they want to. But they have a vendetta against BSA which is obvious to the most casual observer.

 

They won't stop until they destroy BSA, or make BSA bend to its will.

[dsteele]

A man blowing on a candle can extinguish the flame.

 

A man blowing on a campfire will only fan the flames.

 

Unc.

[johndaigler]

fgoodwin, my point, though cut off, was, "So what?"

 

The ACLU often sees us as an example of the govt. not living up to its responsibilities. They can't have a problem with us -- that is to say, it doesn't matter if they do. As a private organization, we are who we are. Our choices are ours to make, ours to live with, and ours to change when, and as, we see fit. The govt. doesn't have that luxury, and the ACLU is determined to remind them of their obligations and their legal requirements.

 

I'm not sure it needs to matter to us, more than any other obstacle we face. Television, high school sports, drugs, lack of trained leaders, rising poverty, obesity, and "indifferent" (I wish I had a better word for this) parents are all larger problems for us.

 

The ACLU isn't going away. We're not going away. What they do impacts the govt. directly, and us only indirectly. The "military based" units have taken this in stride. I think we can, too.

 

I mean no disrespect, nor do I think your concern is foolish. But, I do think that we can weather this storm easily and can focus on issues that impact us directly and that we can impact.

 

UG, poetic, but a bit cryptic for me. Who's doing the blowing? The ACLU?

 

jd

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

fgoodwin says:

 

We (Scouts & Scouters) didn't choose to make a fight out of this -- the ACLU can stop this anytime they want to.

 

Here we go again with "who started it" -- an issue worthy of debate by 6-year-olds. But if we have to get into it, I hope you can at least acknowledge that it is a matter of perspective. Clearly it was not the ACLU that created the policies that are in dispute, nor was it "Scouts and Scouters" at the local level. But it was the BSA that created the issue and it is the BSA that can make at least part of it go away. The BSA can adopt "local option" on accepting openly gay leaders anytime it wants to, and it would not affect the BSA's program or values in the slightest. Atheists are a different story, because the Scout Oath and Law say what they say, though the Girl Scouts appear to have survived even while interpreting their pledge ("to serve God") to allow atheists to be members.

[Proud Eagle]

Local option in no way fixes this. Instead, it will only make things worse.

 

Most of the cases have focused on the atheists not the homosexuals, so taking the homosexual issue out of the mix only helps marginally, assuming it helps at all.

 

Then there is the issue of what happens any time a group surrenders its ground. It is seen by its enemies and opponents as a sign of weakness and a sign that they can force more changes. If BSA retreats it will simply encourage those wishing to either change or destroy the BSA. If you think there are too many legal actions involving BSA now, and too many media based attacks, and too much politics in the issue, just wait and see what happens if BSA retreats.

 

Another problem would be that pressure would then be brought to bear on local units, local councils, volunteer Scout leaders, and quite possibly even the youth. Creating local option creates an incentive for the people attacking BSA to start attacking the individual units and individual leaders.

 

Also, allowing local option won't give BSA greater access, because the fact that it still allows for, and some units choose to use, discriminatory policies would almost certainly result in anti-discrimination policies continuing to be applied to units even if they chose to allow homosexuals in. That is, unless BSA want to run a public campaign to create and publicize a new system of unit designations to note which units do and don't discriminate against homosexuals.

 

So, as we see, creating local option would neither stop the ACLU, nor most of the other legal challengers. It would not stop those in the media opposed to BSA. It would not stop the politicians who seek to force change on the BSA. All it would do is show to everyone that BSA will negotiate on issues it considers to be related to its core values. The public will see it that way and some will even lose respect for BSA. After all, it isn't so hard respect someone that takes a principled position even when you disagree with it. However, it is very difficult to respect someone that is willing to put their values up for sale, even if you agree with their position.

 

So, the positive affect of units allowing homosexuals would be limited to the benefit of the individual homosexuals that would then become members.

 

The downside would extend to the entire BSA on the issue of atheism.

 

There would likely be a decline in support from certain corners, without any appreciable increase in support from others. (After all, I don't think it is likely that the various homosexual groups are going to come running to support BSA even if it changes its policies.)

 

There would be an entire new category of attacks on local leaders and units based on pressuring individual units to change policies. This would pass the burden of fighting this battle from the relatively well prepared national and council levels (with lawyers, public relations experts, etc) to the relatively ill prepared local leaders who do not have training or experience in dealing with these things, nor do they have support from lawyers and PR firms.

 

So, why exactly would local option be a good idea (other than the possible benefit to the homosexuals directly affected) ?

 

To "fix" the problem BSA would have to open its arms wide to welcome every homosexual or athiest that had an interest in joining. Of coarse, it would also have to find a way to replace the many leaders, supporters, and chartered organizations that would drop the BSA. That would, I should note, include replacing me. I could probably live with homosexuals (though I doubt I would ever be willing to put my signature on anything other than an adult application after that). However, if BSA ever gives in on duty to God, then the BSA I know will be dead, and I will find some other place to invest my time and tallents.

[fgoodwin]

The issue isn't "who started it". The issue is litigation and who has the power to stop it. Clearly, we cannot force the ACLU to stop harassing us. Only they can make that decision.

 

And make no mistake -- the ACLU files suit against the military, against schools, etc. solely to harass BSA because of BSA's membership policies, polices which are fully protected under the Constitution.

 

As someone else asked under a different thread: if ACLU is so darned concerned about Constitutional rights, why aren't they defending ours? Why do they continue to harass us?

 

You and I both know the reason.

[OldGreyEagle]

Can someone tell me a case where either you yourself or the scouting unit you serve was/or is being unconstitutionally discriminated against? Because if we could find one case, we could support that persons efforts to have the ACLU help them and then spread the word the ACLU can be on the BSA's side. Does anyone have any type of situation like that handy ?

[NJCubScouter]

As someone else asked under a different thread: if ACLU is so darned concerned about Constitutional rights, why aren't they defending ours? Why do they continue to harass us?

 

Who is "us"? Do you mean the Boy Scouts? Or "us" as Scouters? How about "us" as citizens? Because I have to tell you that as a citizen, I know that the ACLU is protecting my constitutional rights all the time, and I feel better knowing they are there.

[fgoodwin]

But why isn't ACLU defending the Constitutional right of BSA to set its own membership?

 

Don't you find it the least bit hypocritical of them that they claim to defend civil liberties, yet take every chance they can to launch collateral attacks against BSA by harrassing its unit sponsors?