LA Police and Fire depts. to end Explorer programs

[BadenP]

OGE as a moderator on this forum you are expected to interact with much more decorum than you have as of late. You chastise others for being too critical or insulting yet you do the same and worse yourself. If you can not maintain the neutrality a moderator should maybe you should resign your position, IMHO. I agree with ED on his remark made to you.

 

This is not an issue of who is right and who is wrong rather it is test of just how legalistic our society has become and in many cases to the detriment of our society as a whole. In this case it is nothing more than a LA politician looking to make a name for himself in order to be re-elected, no matter what legalize you want to add to the argument. With the LA police and fire department budgets cut to the bone it is highly unlikely that these explorer units will ever be brought back, cuz there is NO money in spite of what the LA city attorney says. So once again the teens of LA lose out and so does the city because of a legal loophole and Leroy and OGE can feel proud because justice was done, so sad.

[skeptic]

Packsaddle: I understand where the current rulings come from, but I do not see how these people are truly harmed by this. If my tax dollars pay for the stupidity of someone doing harm to themselves, even though it is illegal, or ill conceived, or whatever, it does not hurt me, except to annoy me that they are used in such a manner. Something that benefits a majority and does good for the community as a whole is a far better recipient of my tax dollars, especially when there are similar outlets for these few who feel somehow harmed that do not disallow them.

 

My question is when did inconsequential, even questionable, psychological harm become a reason to deny the better good? If we are to hold to the law with no "common sense judgment", then we need to arrest or fine a large majority of the population for one type of violation or another (many unknown, but violating statutes long out of date), and we certainly need to apply the same standards to every aspect then, including illegals, drug abusers, prisoners, wealthy, government representatives, and on and on. I simply fail to understand how an atheist is harmed by having to see a cross on a hill, or to occasionally hear a mention of God, or to have an miniscule percentage of his tax dollar benefit the community and the kids that reside there just because the group running it has beliefs with which they disagree. It is simply a matter of making an issue of something that has almost no true impact on anyone, while allowing far more abusive activity to run rampant, or somehow be legitimized due to strange twistings of law and perspective.

 

I know that I am viewed by the "pseudo intellectuals" and PC crowd as foolish and completely out of touch. But I live in the real world; and frankly, people on my level are reaching the point of breaking and more and more are feeling disenfranchised. It is a bit scary to think what could actually happen if this kind of "Egocentrism" continues unabated. So destroying or demonizing groups that actually help the society most of the time just makes no sense to me. And, of course, there are a great many well educated, brilliant minds that can offer very strong arguments that some of the judgments recently made are wrong (written off by others because they are on the "wrong side"). Certainly, a lot of them were passed with a minimal majority of the panels.

 

To me, people need to stop living their lives like noone else matters. If there is no actual physical psychological harm, or real monetary harm, then just get on with your own life, and leave those with whom you disagree alone. Let's try going back to the old adage of "live and let live".

 

Rose colored glasses in a Utopian story. Not in what is left of my life time.

[packsaddle]

The way I understood OGE's statement was as a parable about logical arguments. Call it the parable of two morons. I considered it to be quite humorous. It could have been called the parable of two geniuses but I suspect that two geniuses would both see the fallacy and thus avoid the whole situation. I took no offense. I suspect Ed didn't either and that his response had a touch of sarcasm. Ed knows he's not a moron. Right, Ed? (Hey, someone get the bucket, so-and-so's drooling again)

 

Actually, if someone really and truly thought they were being labeled a moron, I would wonder how a moron could 'get' something that subtle in the first place. More likely, an offense like that would be a case of thin skin and a way to 'get back' at the person writing the parable. That would make offended persons more like a bunch of sadducees or something like that, indignant that at the way a parable ridiculed their logic.

 

Edited to change tense.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, I agree that school officials were wrong to sign any BSA charters, and that these school officials were either acting dishonestly or out of ignorance. I don't think the BSA can claim ignorance, so that leaves dishonest.

 

Skeptic, are you OK with White and Colored water fountains? Everyone gets a drink, so people shouldn't kick up a fuss, right?

[packsaddle]

Skeptic writes, "I simply fail to understand how an atheist is harmed by having to see a cross on a hill, or to occasionally hear a mention of God, or to have an miniscule percentage of his tax dollar benefit the community and the kids that reside there just because the group running it has beliefs with which they disagree."

An atheist is not harmed by those things. But if his taxes support an organization that provides benefits to the community but they are benefits from which he and his children are excluded, THAT is harm.

A long time ago a local public school excluded the children of a friend of mine from sports because they were Jewish. In your view those boys were not harmed. However, I see the harm to two Jewish boys who didn't get to participate in sports and to their parents who paid the taxes that supported the sports program. I see it fairly clearly. It works the same for atheists.

 

And later, "I know that I am viewed by the "pseudo intellectuals" and PC crowd as foolish and completely out of touch." Skeptic, how do you know this is how you are viewed..and just who are these 'pseudo intellectuals' anyway? Has anyone in these threads written that they view you as foolish and completely out of touch? I know I haven't. Maybe I'm not one of the pseudo intellectuals, though, so I guess we need to see that list.

[scoutldr]

Whew...I'm going home to see if there's any twinkies left. All this talk of food makes me hungry.

[skeptic]

Merlyn:

 

Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges still does not work.

 

Packsaddle:

 

No, you are not likely to be on the list, if I were to actually have one. I basically have been told a few times that my ideas are out of date and too simplistic; occasionally hinted at on this board. And, from my point of view, I would only have an issue with an atheist in the group if they made it an issue. The incident you noted would be unacceptable; but I again may see it too much black and white, and view the atheism as something that can be worked around in most cases (especially with youth who are still likely searching for their own beliefs), maybe even an opportunity to offer another view. On the other hand, I fail to see why, when there are other options for them if they choose to believe/disbelieve, they would want to join BSA. It again comes back to why would you choose to join a group if you do not like what its precepts are? Find something more compatible; but do not demonize that with which you disagree. What is the point?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges still does not work.

 

Well, it's true that a public school having a Whites Only and a Colored water fountain allows everyone to drink, while a public school having a cub scout pack has a group for theists and absolutely nothing for atheists, so I assume having separate water fountains is even better in your view, right?

 

Right?

[CA_Scouter]

Hey M,

 

Are you implying that if a public school has a club for theists and another club for atheists that its now ok for the public school to have a club for theists?

 

I wonder if having a club for atheists that requires a statement of atheism discriminates against theists.

 

I think I'm 'eisted out. Gnite.

 

[evmori]

Ed, I agree that school officials were wrong to sign any BSA charters, and that these school officials were either acting dishonestly or out of ignorance. I don't think the BSA can claim ignorance, so that leaves dishonest.

 

Well, Merlyn, at least you agree there is culpability on both sides!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

CA_Scouter writes:

Are you implying that if a public school has a club for theists and another club for atheists that its now ok for the public school to have a club for theists?

 

Nope. You'll notice that White and Colored water fountains aren't legal, either. "Separate but equal" isn't equal.

 

I wonder if having a club for atheists that requires a statement of atheism discriminates against theists.

 

Of course. You'll notice public schools can't run those, either.

[boomerscout]

How did this thread become about atheism? The linked news clipping was about L.A.'s gay community not wanting Learning for Life/Exploring to be the contractor-provider for the police & fire departments' youth programs. If the BSA was taking tax dollars to provide this service, then the gays probably have a valid point.

I've been in contact with friends & acquaintances who are either in Scouting or were. None of us are aware of any public school being the CO. Scouts may have met at a public school, but the CO was always a separate, independent group such as Parents of Children Attending School ###. These groups did not receive tax money. Lots of community groups could use the school facilities after hours.

While I find it hard to believe any school administrator would seek out extra duties, can anyone give me any specifics on which public school (and when) was the actual CO?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

How did this thread become about atheism?

 

Topic drift.

 

The linked news clipping was about L.A.'s gay community not wanting Learning for Life/Exploring to be the contractor-provider for the police & fire departments' youth programs. If the BSA was taking tax dollars to provide this service, then the gays probably have a valid point.

 

The PD and FD operate with tax dollars, of course.

 

While I find it hard to believe any school administrator would seek out extra duties, can anyone give me any specifics on which public school (and when) was the actual CO?

 

There were roughly 10,000 in 1998.

See figures here:

http://www.scouter.com/archives/Scouts-L/200005/0617.asp

 

Also see this thread, where I ask Fred Goodwin about his cub scout pack that was, at the time, chartered by a public school; you can email him and ask him about it:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=76435&p=2

 

[Lisabob]

Boomer,

 

As has been commented upon elsewhere, the public schools do not currently charter BSA scout units. My understanding is that this change took place in the 90s, after the Supreme Court case (Dale), in which the BSA successfully argued that it is a private club and can therefore discriminate with regard to membership.

 

While Dale was about homosexuality and not atheism, the broader point stands; private clubs can set membership requirements more or less as they see fit.

 

The problem comes from having government institutions (schools, among others) sponsor groups that explicitly discriminate on the basis of religion. This puts government institutions at odds with the Supreme Court's various rulings on the meaning of the establishment clause and civil rights.

 

So, it has been quite some time since public schools have routinely sponsored scouting units. Many such units did migrate to "Parents of School X" clubs, or to PTOs, or to VFWs, etc.

 

The fundamental question in this matter was whether the BSA's other programs like Explorers are sufficiently organizationally distinct from the BSA to merit government sponsorship. Rules for who can join an Explorer Post differ from a scout troop. Explorers is a separate division. The BSA has maintained that it is ok for government entities to sponsor Explorers, as a result. Evidently LA Police and Fire have reached different conclusions.

 

It really is a shame that kids will lose out on wonderful programs as a result. On the other hand, the problem could be most easily resolved if the BSA would simply change its discriminatory practices so that all children could benefit from scouting programs. The BSA has tried to play it both ways, maintaining their self-professed status as a "private religious club" with restrictive membership requirements while also expecting significant government backing. It is time for the BSA to recognize the true costs of their membership policy decisions and either pay those costs without complaint, or change the membership policy.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My understanding is that this change took place in the 90s, after the Supreme Court case (Dale), in which the BSA successfully argued that it is a private club and can therefore discriminate with regard to membership.

 

No, the BSA dishonestly kept rechartering public schools for five years after the Dale decision. They didn't stop until the ACLU threatened to start suing public schools that ran BSA units that excluded atheists:

http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2005/03/national_boy_scout_organizatio.shtml