Loss of Charter

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

ASM59 writes:

Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would make arguments against an association between Scouts and Schools 50 years ago.

 

The ACLU letter to the BSA threatening to sue public schools that chartered scout units cited Torcaso v. Watkins, which was a supreme court decision from 44 years ago. What has changed are not first amendment rulings but the BSA's insistence that it's a private religious group that excludes atheists.

[evmori]

So, Merlyn, guess you don't wanna join my atheist only club. Too bad! You could have been a founding member!

 

What are you gonna do when all this stuff is overturned by the SCOTUS? What will you threaten then?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What would be overturned by the supreme court, Ed? The BSA has agreed to stop issuing charters to government entities, there's no court case to overturn.

[Novice_Cubmaster]

ASM59,

 

Let me apologize for not wishing you right off the bat, good luck & Godspeed in finding a new Charter Org before pursuing a tasty thread.

 

NC

[NeilLup]

Hello,

 

The original question was "Has anyone else had to deal with this?" It's a lot more fun, I guess, to talk about BSA policies and agreement or disagreement with them. But to the original question, as Council Commissioner and as Council VP, the answer for me was "Yes, far more than I expected or than I would like."

 

The sponsors who wanted to terminate sponsorship were, by and large, schools and other governmental organizations and "welcoming" churches. The reason was that, rightly or wrongly, sponsoring a BSA unit was perceived as created and/or continuing an affiliation with an organization which had very prominently taken a position perceived as anti-gay. These organizations did not want to continue this association. They acknowledged the benefit of Scouting and often said that they wished that Scouting had not taken the position they had on gays.

 

There were other objections relating to atheists, girls, etc. but, in our community at that time, the big problem was the policy on gays.

 

Sometimes we were able to retain the unit. But sometime, a change of sponsor was needed, as in the case of one 85 year Boy Scout Troop. We never had a terminating sponsor become ugly about this and there always was plenty of warning and plenty of cooperation in finding a new sponsor.

 

I also ran across this in attempting to recruit a District Chairman. The candidate said "In my community, becoming a Boy Scout leader is perceived as publicly taking a position in opposition to gay rights. I am not willing to take that position at this time." We talked about avowed homosexuals and about the inappropriateness of discussion of sex when children are present. But the person just reiterated that it doesn't matter to him what the Boy Scouts say their position is, what matters to him as a potential member and as a leader in his community is the way that the BSA is perceived.

[stlscouter]

so is there a difference between an atheist (no who denies the existance of god) and an aniti-theist (one who works against God)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

The San Diego cases. The one form Chicago regarding Jamboree. Once these are overturned the teeth in your attacks fall out! Then it's back to the public schools as charter partners!

 

Now, about your membership in my club.........

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, the San Diego cases and the Jamboree case, even if reversed, wouldn't somehow reverse Torcaso and allow public schools to practice religious discrimination. Plus, since both of those decisions would take years to reach an appeals court, it would be about 2 or 3 years since public schools had stopped chartering BSA units, so that wouldn't do anything to change the immediate problem of all packs and troops currently chartered to schools needing to be rechartered.

[Hunt]

With all due respect, packsaddle, I hardly think it's "whining" to point out that criticism is unfair. Certainly Merlyn has a First Amendment right to criticize BSA all he wants (that's what people usually say when it's pointed out that what they're saying is wrong-headed--that they have a right to say it anyway. Sure!)

Merlyn can't explain why he thinks it's wrong for a religious organization to limit its membership to religious people. He can argue sensibly that it shouldn't be sponsored by government entities, and why it shouldn't "denigrate" atheists, but he really can't explain why there's anything wrong with exclusive organizations. I thought his comparison of BSA with the KKK was pretty funny--Merlyn's analogy suggests that he thinks the problem with the KKK is that they won't let blacks JOIN.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, religious organizations certainly can restrict their membership to religious people, like the freemasons. The BSA, by having e.g. public schools and military bases as sponsors for decades, was not acting like an exclusive religious organization, but as a public accommodation. They should have lost Dale on that basis (they should only have won if they had refused all government sponsors for decades). Also, the fact that many local units ignore the religious requirement and allow atheists to join their particular pack or troop shows how that particular rule is doing little more than excluding some boys who want to join based solely on their religious views, which is hardly different than how restricted clubs excluded Jews.

 

You might note that my KKK examples show that both the KKK and the BSA discriminate as private clubs, yet the BSA often gets government perks that the KKK would not get, simply because many government agencies ignore the BSA's discrimination against atheists. Would San Diego lease 18 acres of a public park to the KKK for $1 and allow the KKK to use the park exclusively for their members during the peak summer months?

[Hunt]

Merlyn, you keep going back to the government perks and government sponsorship. You've claimed, ad infinitum, that this is what you care about, not BSA's restrictive membership rules. You're going to change your position now, now that you've essentially won, at least on sponsorship? I'm pretty sure you said before that you didn't care if BSA changed its membership policies or gave up government sponsorship--but now you do care? I repeat the question--see if you can give a straight answer--what is wrong with BSA, a religious organization, restricting its membership to religious people if it no longer is entangled with government? Please answer without saying that BSA is still entangled with government--I think you understand the question.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

what is wrong with BSA, a religious organization, restricting its membership to religious people if it no longer is entangled with government?

 

In the BSA's specific case, it doesn't merely restrict membership to believers in (at least one) god, it also actively denegrates atheists as part of its official policy.

[Lynda J]

 

There is no way that anyone will ever explain anything the Merlyn/Leroy. or changing his opinion of scouting. That simply isn't going to happen.

Merlyn hates BSA, he will always hate BSA. He dislikes what it stands for and represents. People like him need a platform to talk from. If no one responds to his posts guess what he no longer has a platform. After about a week on this group I figured out where he was coming from.

If we respond to his spouts we in our act give him validity. We say that his opinion of scouting matters to us. To me it does not. We as leaders know what this program gives to boys. So I could give a rats rump what Merlyn thinks of it.

 

[stlscouter]

Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God

From the BSA National Executive Board, June 12, 1991:

 

Be it resolved that the following reaffirmation of the position of the Boy

Scouts of America relating to the duty to God be, and hereby is, enacted that the bylaws, rules and regulations, and literature of the Corporation reflect this reaffirmation accordingly.

 

In 1985, America celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. Since 1910, eighty million Americans have subscribed to the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, which have stood the test of time.

 

The National Executive Board of the BSA proudly states, through its mission statement, that the values which the organization strives to instill in young people are those based upon the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. A Scout pledges: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law...."

 

The first Boy Scouts of America *Handbook for Boys*, published in August 1911, declares that "..no boy can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." (page 215)

 

The latest edition of the Boy Scout Handbook, published in 1990, reads: "A scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." (page 561)

 

While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of duty to God.

 

The following statements are additional information on the BSA position:

 

The Boy Scouts of America has always been committed to the moral, ethical, and spiritual development of our youth. Scouting is not a religion, but duty to God is a basic tenet of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Scouting does not seek to impose its beliefs upon others who do not share them. Virtually every religion is represented in Scouting, and the BSA does not define or interpret God. That is the role of the Scout's family and religious advisors.

 

Scouting respects those who do not share its beliefs and it would not ask others to alter their faith in any fashion in order to become Scouts. They too are free to follow their own beliefs. Rather, the BSA membership believes that the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are central to the BSA goal of teaching the values of self-reliance, courage, integrity, and consideration to others. Scouting may not be for everyone, but for eight decades, Scouting has provided meaningful programs and adventure to more than eighty million young people in the United States.

 

What in the above statement denigrates an atheist?

They are not even mentioned. You have not been defamed. However, comparing the BSA with the KKK is denigrating.

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

A couple of thoughts.

 

Lynda, in all fairness, I don't think Merlyn has ever said that he hates BSA and what it stands for. He is opposed to what he sees in some BSA policies, regarding the inclusion of atheists, and the use of public facilities by Scouts that he sees as a violation of the separation of church and state. If he hates BSA, I'd ask him to say so to clear that up.

 

stlscouter,

The statement about a boy not being able to grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God pretty clearly is implying that atheists can't be the best kind of citizens. That sounds denigrating to me.

 

Now, is BSA a religious organization or not? They seem to play that both ways depending on what court case you look at. What makes something a religious organization? Is there some legal definition? Is BSA a religious organization that uses the outdoors to teach its aims, or is BSA an outdoors organization that sees a belief in a god as central to its aims, or is it a youth organization that sees both the outdoors and a belief in a god as central to its aims, or what?