good enough for the Marines...

[Bob White]

"The larger question is a judgment call on whether the BSA should have this requirement, whether it makes good sense. Clearly people differ on their response to that

 

Of course there are people whio differ on the topic. If you change it there will be people who disagree so then do you change it back?

 

You cannot have values that shift everytime you believe something that others do not. Some don't believe in the pledge, do we remove it? some do not believe in helping others so do we take that out as well?

 

"This declaration does not apply to youth, nor to their non-leader-enrolled families, Parents of youth who join must be informed of the Declaration, and that leaders will encourage a duty to God amongst youth members."

 

So basically the program will try to istill in you values but you do not have to pay attention to them if you do not want to.

 

The Marine family mentioned in the story is evidently more secure and comfortable in their athiesm than some scout leaders are in importance of a Scout's promise to do his duty to God.

 

People who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

I remember similar arguments against allowing women to be scoutmasters.

 

I stand for the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and pledged allegiance long before I said the Scout Oath and Law. Let's discuss John's proposal. This topic will be heavy on my mind at Scout Sunday tomorrow.

 

A point about Marines...I was not a Marine nor do I know any personally, but whenever I have asked for their help with scouts, I always get a "will do". No can't do, won't try. "Will do". I would like to see Scouting adopt that attitude.

[Bob White]

Schiff

Does the Marine corps accept anyone just because they are a member of the BSA?

 

You have yet to respond.

[Beavah]

It always amazes me why people feel it necessary to make demands on others.... One cannot say they are promoting freedom and then take it away from others.

 

Gotta agree with jblake here. I had that conversation with a young scout once, shortly after the Dale decision. He though bein' in Scouts was a "right." I said if it's a right then we have an obligation to provide leaders for anybody who wants to be a scout. Are yeh ready to empower me to pressgang you and your parents as ASMs so as to provide other kids with their "right" to Scouting? Can I levy a tax on you to fund that "right"?

 

Scoutin' is a program provided by the generosity of others as a gift, a service. If yeh don't want the gift, it's OK to politely decline it. It's not OK to demand that they buy you the gift you want.

 

Now, none of that stands in the way of our own reflection as Scouters and BSA folks about whether we want to offer that gift of our time and treasure more broadly than we are at present. That's our choice, and worth discussin', especially among those of us who actually have votes at the council or national level.

 

I see two notions being possible. One is allowing youth atheists to join but keeping our expectations for adult leaders. I reckon that's what we have by default most places anyway, eh? Except when some particularly obnoxious set of parents decides to try to make a political statement with their kid. This would be the equivalent of a church running a soup kitchen for anybody in need, eh? Yeh might have to be a member of the church to serve, but not to eat. But if yeh eat, you might do it in a room that has a cross on the wall, a banner with a scripture passage, and someone sittin' next to you who says grace. We are what we are, but all kids are welcome. This likely gets us back into schools and federal grants. It will create an oddity in that there will be a few fine scouts who are not eligible to be ASMs.

 

Da second notion, which is a bigger change, is simply respecting the CO's choice of adult leaders. CO's that are churches opposed to homosexuality may continue to use that as a selection criteria; others might not. If there's a real actuarial risk, reduce the insurance coverage for the latter group of COs and let 'em make their own choices.

 

In both cases, we can keep a notion of duty to something outside yourself, and of reverence.

 

Aside from the Relationships politics and other social politics, I reckon the first option wouldn't change us much at all, eh? Probably the second wouldn't either, really.

 

Functionally, though, I reckon the second would split us. While some CO's may or may not stay in the BSA, they are at least likely to generate separate camporees and summer camps and other events for some period of time at the very least. That might be enough to cost us a lot of our camp properties and such. The short-to-medium term impact would stand a good chance of killin' a lot of councils.

 

I think the first option is an easier one, though. Allow a footnote that "God" in the Scout Oath refers to any duty or obligation outside yourself and that of your family/tribe/nation. To the Earth/Global Environment, to Znerflot, to Peace, whatever - just something which can place demands on you to be a better person, and can serve as a counterweight to poisonous nationalism. But you'll be exposed to friends and adult leaders who believe in God and are allowed to express that belief and share it, just as they will be exposed to you.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

If yeh don't want the gift, it's OK to politely decline it. It's not OK to demand that they buy you the gift you want.

 

Make sure you tell this to the Cradle of Liberty council and the Berkeley Sea Scouts.

 

Oh, and make sure you tell this to yourself over in the HUD fraud thread. The BSA is not *entitled* to HUD grants, they have to meet the same requirements as everyone else.

[Beavah]

Nah, Merlyn, once again yeh misunderstand.

 

I believe that Berkeley Sea Scouts and da Cradle of Liberty council have a right to offer their services to whichever groups they are able to serve.

 

I believe the test for receiving government monies should be an organization's ability to serve a public purpose or need. Doesn't matter if the people or organizations who serve the public are religious or not, space aliens or not. Doesn't matter if they only serve one of the needs of a segment of da population; we all have limited talents.

 

So giving a scholarship to a girl to attend Wellesley College is just fine, as is giving a scholarship to a boy to attend Notre Dame. Allowing a youth service organization that serves a substantial portion of the youth in your city to remain in the building they built and maintain without charging them additional dollars is just common-sense good public policy. Giving a not-for-profit youth educational group a free berth in exchange for serving some kids and providing you the quarry rock to build the marina is just good public policy. Giving Scouting For All money to provided needed services to the youth it serves (if it would actually stop spending its time lobbying and actually serve some youth ) might also be good public policy.

 

In a diverse, pluralistic society we work on common challenges together, as partners. Da challenges of at-risk urban youth are hard enough without liberal white self-righteous types tryin' to decide which of their fellow citizens are "worthy" enough to be partners in helping children.

 

But anyway, this is a thread hijack, eh? We should let folks get back to the discussion about alternative approaches to BSA's membership policies.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[hot_foot_eagle]

How much do we spend on legal defense of our present position? It might be better spent attracting customers instead of driving them away.

 

How big a PR hit do we take as an organization every time the subject comes up in the news?

 

How much money would be available to further our goals if we chose not to restrict membership?

 

The idea of unrestricted membership for youth is worth exploring. How better to demonstrate to youth that acceptance is achievable. One might also consider it an opportunity to minister to youth without proselytizing. I've never seen the point in preaching to the converted, anyway.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Nah, Merlyn, once again yeh misunderstand.

 

I believe that Berkeley Sea Scouts and da Cradle of Liberty council have a right to offer their services to whichever groups they are able to serve.

 

No Beavah, YOU misunderstand.

 

Both the Sea Scouts and the C of L council have been acting like their free berths and $1/year headquarters are something they DESERVE.

 

They aren't. They're gifts from the government. And the governments of Berkeley and Philadelphia have decided to stop the free gifts.

 

I believe the test for receiving government monies should be an organization's ability to serve a public purpose or need. Doesn't matter if the people or organizations who serve the public are religious or not, space aliens or not. Doesn't matter if they only serve one of the needs of a segment of da population; we all have limited talents.

 

Well, wake me up when your utopia becomes reality. Sounds like the segregated 1950s to me, when being white was a big plus in terms of what kinds of public services were available.

 

In a diverse, pluralistic society we work on common challenges together, as partners.

 

The BSA does not. Got that? It's like asking blacks to work with the KKK.

[Beavah]

My apologies to all for attemptin' to answer Merlyn and thereby continuing the thread hijack.

 

Hot Foot Eagle raises some interestin' questions.

 

I think it's really hard to quantify some of the answers, eh? In some areas, we've taken some real PR and financial hits. In other areas, we've earned some real PR and financial bonuses.

 

I reckon our overall preference is not to be on da front lines of the cultural shouting match.

 

B

 

 

 

[FireKat]

This may be a bit of a hijack but why is there some much against an organization trying to use tax/donation dollars to help kids when some governments spend million to support private businesses like auto mfg and the biggest on that bugs me sport franchises.

They tax even the poor to build large sports facilities that only the rich really can attend and it makes a profit for some rich fatcat. Is that fair?

I guess it is OK as long as God is left out. But the really strange thing is that these places are also rented to bible thumpers at times. How can they preach in a place built by tax dollars? I guess money talks. 

[packsaddle]

As Rush Limbaugh says, it's ALL about money.

[RememberSchiff]

Today, I attended Scout Sunday at our CO, a Protestant Church, with two dozen scouts from my unit. Some of our scouts who attended are not Christian and coincidentally none of our scouts are members of that Church. But there we were, all willingly participating in the Sunday program though some were non-believers in Jesus. One Muslim scout read part of the service and a Jewish scout another. The Church welcomed all of us to participate in their program today as we felt comfortable. No one said to a scout well you are "this" so you can't do "that" or be a part of our program. There was no religious auditing. This seemed to me, the is the way it should be.

 

I think we should remove the religion standard from scouts but keep it for the adult scout leaders.

 

Specifically on the the Boy Scout Application, the DRP should be removed and there would be an asterisk next to "duty to God*" and "be reverent*". There would no religion standard applied to youngsters, as they are still forming their religious beliefs or may be simply following family direction. What would the asterisk footnote say? Well, we could follow document tradition and forget to place the explanatory footnote (that's a joke). Maybe the footnote

 

*according to family direction?

 

 

The Adult Application would remain unchanged.

 

I think this change would welcome some boys who want to join but who have been prohibited. I do not see the BSA program being negatively impacted. Adult leader requirements remain the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

FireKat writes:

This may be a bit of a hijack but why is there some much against an organization trying to use tax/donation dollars to help kids when some governments spend million to support private businesses like auto mfg and the biggest on that bugs me sport franchises.

 

If it was to help ALL kids, fine. If it's to help all kids except Catholics/Jews/whatever, that might have flown some decades ago, but not today.

 

I guess it is OK as long as God is left out. But the really strange thing is that these places are also rented to bible thumpers at times. How can they preach in a place built by tax dollars? I guess money talks.

 

You really have a problem understanding "equal treatment"

 

Rent property to religious groups? Fine, if it's the same rent as anyone else. Bible thumpers, Koran thumpers, atheists -- all get the same rate.

 

Public funds to help poor kids? Fine, if you don't exclude kids for having the "wrong" religious views.

[FireKat]

As usual, you pick pieces but ingnore other parts. Explain how helping the rich and their sports complexes is equal treatment?

[Bob White]

I do not expect a child to have completely formulated a personal understanding or appreciation of God's presence in his life.

 

And the the youth membership does not require that of the youth. It requires the adult to promise they will give DEFINITE ATTENTION to hios religious development and tells the parent that Scouting will do so too.

 

When I was a Scoutmaster, and before the Declaration of Religious Principle was a part of the application, I had the parents of a Scout invite me to their home to discuss a problem.

 

The troop was sponsored by a church, and we started meetings with an invocation, we said grace at meals, and we did a short religious reflection on outings.

 

The parents asked me over to explain that they were athiests and that they did not promote or criticize the existence of a God to their children but left it up to them to decide for themselves. Their concern was that the church or the committee would kick their son out of the troop.

 

I explained that that would not happen. There are enough adults still on the path to discovering God that I did not expect a child to have fully formed an understanding. I could however not alter the advancement requirements for their son, which required that a scout live the Scout values which include Reverence and Duty to God.

 

I suggested that if they would work with their son (and I or others would be willing to assist if asked) to find a way to try and understand aspects of religious belief that his advancement could continue unhindered and he could continue to explore his personal religion through Scouting.

 

Sadly a month later the parents withdrew their son from Scouting. I had the opportunity to tell this story to the director for the BSA Relationships Division and he thought that was an excellent way to try and meet the needs of the scout and still maintain the values of the program.

 

It is a difficult topic but belief and reverence to God has always been, and will likely always be, a cornerstone of the traditional Scouting programs. I for one am glad of that.