The Future of the BSA?

[DWise1]

The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

I respectfully disagree.

 

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

 

Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

 

[DWise1]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

With all due respect, a "BSA type organization" is a total non-starter. BSA, Inc, holds the CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER for Scouting in this country. No other organization can even begin to compete against it. No other organization but BSA can provide Scouting in this country. Others have tried, but have failed in the courts.

 

Rather, we need BSA itself to HAVE THE TESTESTERONE-LADEN TISSUE to live up to its own OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED RELIGIOUS POLICIES. So far, BSA has been completely wimping out.

[packsaddle]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

[DWise1]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

What? Those totally disconnected icons at the bottom of the screen? Whatever are THOSE for?

 

Have you even bothered to read the DRP? Or the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED POLICIES about the Oath? Or the about the Law? Or the Reaffirmation of 1991?

 

Are atheists welcomed as members? HELL NO! WHY NOT? What OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA RELIGIOUS POLICIES exclude them? SHOW ME!!!!!!! In more than 23 years, I have yet to find one, so SHOW ME ONE!!!!!

 

I submitted my application affirming my agreement with the DRP IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY. I was accepted, but then when the BSA spy on CompuServe marked my very first posts there as "ATHEIST LEADER", I was marked for removal. We all know how BSA acts in such cases. Totally without warning, the individual gets a letter expelling him and that is all there is to it. That is exactly what BSA did to the Randall twins.

 

So what is the reason for the exclusion of atheists? What specific OFFICIAL BSA POLICY demands that?

 

Oh, yes, BSA claims to have a "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being", but in the 1990's while BSA was fervently insisting on that "rule", no such rule actually existed. For that matter, such a "rule" would have directly contradicted OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY. And when BSA tried to continue that stupid game of "we have this 'belief in a Supreme Being' rule" in court, the judge immediately ordered BSA to produce that rule, whereupon BSA had to admit, in court, that that "rule" simply did not exist.

 

So then, my question still stands, what OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY OR RULE requires the expulsion of atheists?

 

An honest answer, please.

[packsaddle]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

Well, yeah, I've read that stuff. Look, this is not a legal system. It's not a government agency with regulations they're legally required to follow. It's a private club. And, as it's been made clear to me many times over the years, the 'rules' for membership are pretty much whatever the 'top brass' want them to be, interpreted pretty much however they want to. As your experience shows empirically, just because they don't explicitly exclude someone doesn't mean that person (or group) is not excluded. Now you can complain loudly about openness and honesty and honor and all that and I'll be right there with you. But as long as the 'Lords Proprietors' or the 'High Priests' want it to be the way it is, it WILL be. I wish you luck.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

I respectfully disagree.

 

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

 

Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

That doesn't magically turn discrimination into not-discrimination.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES.

 

Requiring members to make a promise to a god, and rejecting those who refuse, is religious discrimination. It doesn't matter how the BSA interprets it.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists.

 

But I can easily find a number of people who have either had their existing membership revoked, or have been refused membership, based solely on their religious views and/or refusal to make a promise that includes a god, including court records where BSA officials have testified that a person's atheism is the basis of their lack of membership.

 

Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

 

The BSA doesn't need a reason.

[Twocubdad]

The BSA needs to do a better job communicating their value proposition to the American public. They need to explain why kids' time is better spent in scouting rather than playing sports, playing video games, watching TV, etc. I don't see the BSA doing any advertising on social media, online media, or traditional media. I would like to see the BSA counter the negative media news by touting all the positive aspects of scouting like outdoor adventure, state-of-the-art youth protection, and leadership training.

 

The NatGeo show "Are You Tougher Than a Boy Scout" is a great way to get kids interested in scouting but there needs to be more along those lines.

 

The problem with a national campaign is that it depends on units and councils to work. If National spends $XX on TV spots in Townville, but the council isn't able, willing, or interested in facilitating a large influx of new recruits, then all National has done is waste that money and create ill will on the part of the new recruits who fall through the cracks.

National has put the money in where they can best spend it, and created a complete marketing package that is available for free to any council that wants to use it: http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/con...ecruiting.aspx

 

This could sound like excuse-making, but take a look at BeAscout.org and put in your own ZIP code. I use it routinely to try and find contact info for troops across the country, but it has almost always not been configured. Free marketing for every unit in the country, but virtually no units are taking advantage of it.

Oh please! If BeAScout is your example of BSA's crackerjack marketing efforts, then any others will be a waste of time and money, too.

 

We were one of the first units in the area to configure BeAScout for our troop. In the years since, it has generated precisely TWO leads. But in order to pursue them, I have to check the site manually every day? That's an effective use of my time? We get more inquiries off a very simple district web site which shows a table listing troops, meeting dates and places and my email and phone number. Gee whiz, maybe if they had thought to add a function which would notify unit leaders by email when they get a hit, they could respond. Nah, that makes too much sense.

 

My hunch is BeAScout was the result of some check box on the strategic plan launched with no training, no support and no follow-through.

[Basementdweller]

KDD for the unit there is no benefit to having phantom members.......

 

For the DE and SE on the other hand....Lot of money tied to those numbers.........then the Learning for life numbers...... All ya got to do is google BSA membership numbers fraud and look what pops up. Interesting our old SE left we lost 4k scouts the first year he was gone.

 

 

Stand up at round table and demand answers in front of the room...

 

Write letters and Emails asking very specific questions about money and/or membership.

 

Question what a DE is doing.....

 

Be a voice of opposition and begin to gain support.......

 

I was warned once about it......Regarding District cub events......and again not to long ago in a thread regarding membership fraud.....I can't find it anymore.....I received an email telling me to stop..............

[Scouter99]

The BSA needs to do a better job communicating their value proposition to the American public. They need to explain why kids' time is better spent in scouting rather than playing sports, playing video games, watching TV, etc. I don't see the BSA doing any advertising on social media, online media, or traditional media. I would like to see the BSA counter the negative media news by touting all the positive aspects of scouting like outdoor adventure, state-of-the-art youth protection, and leadership training.

 

The NatGeo show "Are You Tougher Than a Boy Scout" is a great way to get kids interested in scouting but there needs to be more along those lines.

 

The problem with a national campaign is that it depends on units and councils to work. If National spends $XX on TV spots in Townville, but the council isn't able, willing, or interested in facilitating a large influx of new recruits, then all National has done is waste that money and create ill will on the part of the new recruits who fall through the cracks.

National has put the money in where they can best spend it, and created a complete marketing package that is available for free to any council that wants to use it: http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/con...ecruiting.aspx

 

This could sound like excuse-making, but take a look at BeAscout.org and put in your own ZIP code. I use it routinely to try and find contact info for troops across the country, but it has almost always not been configured. Free marketing for every unit in the country, but virtually no units are taking advantage of it.

Thank you for replying to your own thoughts on the matter, you are now welcome to read what I actually wrote, which did not include any praise for BeAScout.

[King Ding Dong]

KDD for the unit there is no benefit to having phantom members.......

 

For the DE and SE on the other hand....Lot of money tied to those numbers.........then the Learning for life numbers...... All ya got to do is google BSA membership numbers fraud and look what pops up. Interesting our old SE left we lost 4k scouts the first year he was gone.

 

 

In case anyone missed it that ruckus was a line from Brian Johnson in Breakfeast Club. You took the bait.

 

How many days of detention did you get ?

[JoeBob]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

BD: I'm not evaporating when my son 'Eagles out'. I'm disappearing when he ages out or quits. He's 12 now, so I'm probably around for 6 more years. I'll be 65, retirement time.

I have no desire to hang around as a creepy man-scout.

 

DW1: DO you think that boys running around in the woods with only themselves as leaders give a rats hiney about a charter? Testosterone blindness can be a fun thing!

God can help, but I bet that your definition of God isn't the same as 90% of other religious scouters. So why do we need to get more specific?

[DWise1]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

God can help' date=' but I bet that your definition of God isn't the same as 90% of other religious scouters. So why do we need to get more specific?[/quote']

Just the opposite. Officially published BSA policy is that they are forbidden to be specific about religion. Officially published BSA policy is that youth members pay attention to religion in their lives and that adult leaders agree with that, but BSA has absolutely no say in what that is supposed to mean.

 

Officially. But in practice BSA gets very specific about what that is supposed to mean and defines what it is forbidden by officially published BSA policy to define and expels large numbers of members based on those forbidden definitions. All in direct violation of its own officially published policies. And as a result, BSA has wasted literally millions of dollars in unnecessary lawsuits that it has created itself -- in the Randall case, they told our members in a special fund-raising that that had cost them five million dollars; it was BSA that stubbornly thwarted all attempts by the boys' father to resolve the issue and it was BSA who instructed him to sue them.

 

I was saying that BSA needs to find the moral fortitude to follow its own rules. It needs to stop violating its own rules by imposing more specific religious definitions.

[DWise1]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

Yes, they're private, but they also have a congressional charter and they are a corporation. I don't know corporate law, but I would think that there have to be laws governing how a corporation conducts its business. BSA has bylaws, rules and regulations, and many policy statements. Why do that if they don't need them? Are they required to as part of the charter or the process of incorporating? But what use would there be to such requirements if they are free to ignore those rules. I was part of the process of merging two congregations into one and coming up with the bylaws was a very important part of that process, especially since the bylaws govern how the new church is to operate.

 

The only use for their officially published policy that I've seen BSA use was to display their "absolutely nonsectarian" policies to donors who themselves have non-discriminatory requirements so that BSA could get their money. So BSA was lying to them in order to get their money, but to me appears to be fraud. And now that the courts have repeatedly found that BSA discriminates -- they just aren't subject to the laws against discrimination -- they have been losing sponsors and donors. So, yes, honesty and honor do matter. I have repeatedly seen BSA banking on the good will of the public for support for its outlandish discriminatory practices, which included many direct lies, lies which they also tried to tell the judges in the lawsuits they create but which at least the judges won't let them get away with. Now that BSA's true face is coming to light, the good will of the public is eroding away, so, yes, honesty and honor do matter.

 

And I still cannot find any rule that would require the expulsion of atheists. Their "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" doesn't even exist (or at least it didn't in the 1990's; I joined here to find out if that has changed in the meantime) and was yet another bold-face lie that BSA was telling everyone, so that cannot be cited.

 

And that is also part of a much larger question that has puzzled me for the past 50 years: why are atheists so hated? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[DWise1]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

Edit to add: DWise1' date=' welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.[/quote']

I tried playing with that. It doesn't seem to support editing comments, but rather appears to just be for a new post.

[DWise1]

You know....you have to wonder what the purpose is for a DRP in the first place, or even those words in the oath, if BSA really doesn't care about whether or not members are religious? You have to wonder why BSA has so strongly resisted, even claiming to be a private religious organization, if for the past 23 years, they actually welcomed atheists as members?

 

 

 

Before I could possibly consider claims that atheists are welcome as members, I'd have to first read such as explicit policy from BSA itself. And I'd need for BSA to answer my opening questions. Of course, there's also a diabolically delicious way to test all this....and that is for lots of atheists to submit their applications to become members. H'mmmmm? Merlyn, ready to give it a try?

 

Edit to add: DWise1, welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.

Edit to add: DWise1' date=' welcome to the forums. I have to ask, was that really your first post here? BTW, if you click on the underlined 'A' in the message menu, it opens the editor so that you can do all sorts of cutesy things to the message.[/quote']

I tried playing with that. It doesn't seem to support editing comments, but rather appears to just be for a new post.