New Study Reveals Youth Unprepared to Make Challenging Ethical Choices

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes Ed, I AM concerned with accuracy, which is why my list of public schools has always been clearly marked as not 100% correct nor complete, as it is largely computer generated. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[scoutldr]

C'mon Merlyn, we don't use the *-word here.

 

Have to agree with tj's post. I see too much pandering to special interests on the part of BSA, Inc.

 

Also have to agree with the San Diego decision. BSA should not get special treatment from a governmental agency that is not offered to other groups on an equitable basis.

 

I also look askance at any "survey" commissioned (i.e., paid for) by the group which the survey makes look good. Those who know how to do surveys know that you can produce any outcome you want simply by how you craft the questions.

[TheScout]

I just think that the decision is not really up to us or the courts. We should let the people of San Diego decide, through the elected representatives, they elected to set policy and run their city to choose whether to offer any agreement with the BSA or any organization.

 

Let the people decide throught their elected representatives. That is what our democracy is about.

[OldGreyEagle]

"Let the people decide throught their elected representatives. That is what our democracy is about."

 

Actually the American government is not a democracy, its a republic, big difference

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

...today we still have three branches of our government that gives credence to any and all laws, at least for a while longer or until a few decide that they should make law for the many, by themselves in the dark without consent. Presently the courts are selected by consent and they examine the law in the light of day under close scrutiny.

 

In spite of the problems of the BSA management and with all of the legal problems, the results of the "survey" (*which is all it claimed to be) the BSA can point to positive results that indicates a great influence upon the youth it serves, whatever the number. The BSA can do this in spite of those that challenge the organization and I am sure it encourages others to pursue more rigorous analytical examinations on that influence. (*I feel sure that there will be a positive correlation.)

 

 

FB

[NJCubScouter]

TheScout said:

 

Let the people decide throught their elected representatives. That is what our democracy is about.

 

and OGE responded:

 

Actually the American government is not a democracy, its a republic, big difference

 

I wasn't sure which order to respond to these in, but I'll take the last one first, since I think my disagreement with OGE is one of "form" or "terminology" while my disagreement with TheScout is one of "substance."

 

I see it said many times that the U.S. government is a republic, not a democracy. Actually it is both, because there are different kinds of "democracy," and one of them describes the U.S. government. One kind is a "direct" or "pure" democracy, which on a national level exists only in theory. Some smaller units of government do have some limited amounts of "direct democracy," such as those states that allow legislation to be passed by petition (aka "initiative") and referendum, or those towns (particularly in New England) where some local decisions are made by "town meeting" where everybody gets to vote (although even there, I believe there is an elected governing body that does make some decisions; I do not know how they divide it up.)

 

But there is also "representative democracy," and that is what we have. The people rule, but through their elected representatives. Some people call this a "republic," though that word also has more than one meaning. The original meaning of "republic" is a government where "the people" rather than a monarch, hold "sovereignty." In more recent years "republic" has also come to mean essentially the same thing as "representative democracy."

 

Needless to say this leads to some confusion. The UK is NOT a "republic," at least not in form, because it has a monarch, but it is a representative democracy. On the other hand, a country such as Egypt IS a "republic," I believe its official self-given name is "Arab Republic of Egypt," and on paper it has a constitution and elections and branches of government and everything, the only problem is that only one party is allowed to run in the elections and by remarkable coincidence, the last several presidents have continued to be "re-elected" for as long as they managed to keep breathing (that remains to be seen with the current one of course, but he has already been there more than 20 years.) So it is not really a representative democracy or any other kind of democracy, and you can debate whether it is a "republic" as we generally use that term in this country.

 

But the U.S. is both a republic and representative democracy.

 

As for TheScouter, when you say "our democracy," I think you are forgetting that the powers of "elected representatives" (federal, state or local) in the United States are constrained by the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. Specifically, in this case, the First Amendment. In fact, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been termed "anti-majoritarian," but they could just as easily be termed "anti-democratic." The elected representatives have no power, for example, to limit free speech, establish religion, curtail trial by jury, impose "cruel and unusual" punishments etc. etc., because the constitution says they cannot. I suppose that if there were many more limitations on what elected representatives could do, you would have to start questioning whether the U.S. is, in fact, a representative democracy, because at some point the actual ability of the government to do anything starts to become meaningless. As things stand however, it is correct to say that we are governed by our elected representatives, within the limits imposed by the constitution.

[OldGreyEagle]

As much as I can tell, I agree with NJ

[NJCubScouter]

Something else occurs to me: Maybe the fact that it takes at least a whole sentence, probably a paragraph, to accurately describe our form of government (rather than a single, easy word) is part of the "genius" of the Framers of the Constitution. Our system of government is not simple or easy, it is complex, with not just one but several layers of "checks and balances" (the branches of government against each other, the federal vs. state government, and the inherent power of a legislature vs. the specific limitations in the Bill of Rights and in the body of the Constitution. Most of the Framers may have been more concerned about the "mob" (i.e. pure democracy) but they protected against "mob rule" without allowing for absolute rule by the "aristocracy" either. I just marval in amazement sometimes at the system we have in this country, and especially that it manages to survive despite the fact that it does have imperfections, and despite the beating it sometimes takes.

[fgoodwin]

"The elected representatives have no power, for example, to limit free speech . . ."

 

NJCS, I'm sure you know this, but it bears repeating: the right of free speech under the First Amendment is not absolute.

 

Local, state & federal governments can and do restrict freedom of speech all the time. A most obvious example is that we have no First Amendment "right" to lie under oath in a judicial proceeding. Companies have no first amendment "right" to publish false advertising. We have no first amendment "right" to slander or libel another person, etc.

 

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the BSA and character development in young people, but I thought it was worth reminding readers, in case they had forgotten . . .

[TheScout]

The question here is one of constitution interpretation and the increasing large role of judges in our society. It is correct to say that our constitution limits majoritarion impulses in many cases. Such is true of the First Amendment that protects the freedom of speech, the Third Amendment that protects the right not to have soldiers quartered in your house, the Fourth Amendment that protects the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

 

The point I would like to make is that no where in the Constitution can you find a clause saying that the BSA should not get preferential use of state facilities. I imagine such an argument is derived from the clause "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I hope you can see the tangental relationship at best between this clause and the decision of the judge in San Diego to stike down the BSAs lease. The people of the city of San Diego through their elected representatives interpreted the Constitution to allow them to aid the BSA. One judge stepped in with a ruling based only on tangental logic to the original Constitution and struck down the will of the people of San Diego. This judge read this into the Constitution, made up his OWN interpretation, and forced it down the backs of the people of San Diego.

 

"The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign." -John Randolph

[Hunt]

"Also have to agree with the San Diego decision. BSA should not get special treatment from a governmental agency that is not offered to other groups on an equitable basis."

 

Except that isn't what happened. The facts are that BSA approached the city with a proposal and with private money to develop the properties involved--and the whole thing was aired before the public. There were no other groups that came forward with proposals (or money) to set up facilities. It simply was not a situation of a city proposal which was given to a single bidder in a sweetheart deal. When you read the actual facts of the case (which I urge you to do,rather than take my or anybody else's word for it), the judge's decision makes no sense, which is why I predict it will eventually be overturned (assuming BSA pursues it).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

The point I would like to make is that no where in the Constitution can you find a clause saying that the BSA should not get preferential use of state facilities.

 

Sure there is; the BSA discriminates on the basis of religion.

 

I imagine such an argument is derived from the clause "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I hope you can see the tangental relationship at best between this clause and the decision of the judge in San Diego to stike down the BSAs lease.

 

It's right in line with longstanding court precident.

 

Hunt writes:

The facts are that BSA approached the city with a proposal and with private money to develop the properties involved--and the whole thing was aired before the public. There were no other groups that came forward with proposals (or money) to set up facilities. It simply was not a situation of a city proposal which was given to a single bidder in a sweetheart deal.

 

That's exactly what it was. The city didn't call for proposals from anyone else, so nobody came forward with proposals (imagine that). The city typically gets proposals from about 70 different organizations for a single property when it has open bidding. There wasn't any for the Balboa Park property.

[TheScout]

There is no constitutional bar to government discriminating against any religion or lack thereof. If discrimination is what you would call this action. This is especially true of state and municipal governments.

 

I repeat the constitution says "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Did Congress make any law in San Diego, of course not, this is a local government issue. Did any body establish a religion, of course not. The United Kingdom has an establish Church, so does Denmark, no United States government has any such institution. That being said, historically states of the US have had the right to establish a religion if they want. Massachusetts and several other New England states had an established Congregational Church until the 1830s when it was disestablished voluntarily by democratic means. This shows how the Constitution was written with the intent to stop the national government from making laws respecting religion, not state and local ones.

 

A literal reading of the Constitution, the intent of the people who wrote it, and the history of the United States is defied by your argument.

 

The only "precedent" you can cite is court precedent. What is your aversion to letting representative bodies interpret and make law as they see fit. What is your aversion to to respecting the will of the Americans who ratified the Constitution as a contract between the American states as something they could count on over time to stay consistent. No American would have ratified the Constitution if they knew it could be changed at the whim of a couple judges.

 

Americans should not be slaves of the federal judiciary. It is only one of three branches of our federal government. Its jobs is to protect the rights of the American people, not to shove its opinions down their throats as they did in this case. No where in the Constitution does it say that a state or local government can not offer preferential treatment to a private organization if it wishes. Therefore the Supreme Court or any other court does not have the right to read that into the Constitution.

 

America is a republic or a democracy, whatever we wish to call it, not a judical oligarchy.

 

Anyone who wishes the government to do something should stand up before the people and convinve them. Any worthwhile measure will be passed by the people through their elected representatives in time. It is they, not judges who should decide where American society should go.

 

Thank you.

 

"The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign." -John Randolph

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

There is no constitutional bar to government discriminating against any religion or lack thereof.

 

Fortunately, the supreme court disagrees with you.

 

Did Congress make any law in San Diego, of course not, this is a local government issue.

 

And the city of San Diego is constrained by the first amendment via the 14th amendment (which applies it to the states).

 

Did any body establish a religion, of course not.

 

No. But the first amendment covers much more than that; it doesn't prohibit "establishment of A religion" but "establishment of religion".

 

A literal reading of the Constitution, the intent of the people who wrote it, and the history of the United States is defied by your argument.

 

Madison wrote the first amendment, and in his opinion it even prohibits congress hiring a chaplain.

 

Americans should not be slaves of the federal judiciary. It is only one of three branches of our federal government. Its jobs is to protect the rights of the American people, not to shove its opinions down their throats as they did in this case.

 

Prohibiting cities from making special deals with discriminatory organizations IS protecting the rights of the American people.

[whitewater]

Merlyn writes:

 

"No. But the first amendment covers much more than that; it doesn't prohibit "establishment of A religion" but "establishment of religion". "

 

That just illustrates the true heart of the argument. Most of us involved in Scouting realize that belief in God is only a part of the program. The aim of Scouting is to develop good citizens and a belief in God is a tool chosen to arrive at that goal. The primary purpose of the program is secular. And I find it hard to believe that the average observer equates Boy Scouts with religion.

 

I also believe the San Diego case is an example of judicial activism. There are too many things wrong with the case for it to stand on appeal. To start with, it seems to be a stretch to find that the plantiffs even have legal standing to bring the case. In reading the judges decision in the case, he also appeared to be biased against the Scouts.

 

Merlyn also wrote:

 

"Prohibiting cities from making special deals with discriminatory organizations IS protecting the rights of the American people."

 

Where is the special deal? The Scouts spent more money developing and maintaining the property than it was worth. There was a public comment period where no one complained and no one else came forward to offer to run the property. The only other youth organizations with the resources to take on such a property already lease similar property in the park on similar terms. How is any of this protecting the American people? The City of San Diego ended up paying $940,000 to the ACLU for their legal expenses, the BSA is out mega-bucks defending their position, and if they do end up losing the lease the City will have to fork over the $700,000 a year it takes to run and maintain the property. Is that defending the rights of the American people?