UUA renews relationship with Boy Scouts of America

[Peregrinator]

That's the "principle" followed by the BSA, right?

I believe so, as well as the one followed by WOSM.

[Peregrinator]

States don't HAVE rights (and never have); they have powers, not rights.

Could you elaborate on the distinction between the two as it pertains to State governments?

 

But succinctly: State governments as well as municipal governments have duties; therefore they have rights. For example, a State has the duty to protect its citizens; therefore it has the right to do so as well.

[NJCubScouter]

I believe so, as well as the one followed by WOSM.

Ok, just checking.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Could you elaborate on the distinction between the two as it pertains to State governments?

 

But succinctly: State governments as well as municipal governments have duties; therefore they have rights. For example, a State has the duty to protect its citizens; therefore it has the right to do so as well.

 

Wrong.  They have powers to do that, but not rights.  The constitution refers to rights of people, and powers of government.  You can't just arbitrarily slap the label of "right" on anything -- under US law, there isn't even a right to vote.

 

And DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) & Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) would suggest to me that states do not actually have a duty to protect its citizens, at least not in general (they apparently do for situations like a person being in state custody).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I believe so, as well as the one followed by WOSM.

 

 

This is the same WOSM that is apparently OK with the Scouting Association in the UK admitting atheists.

[T2Eagle]

Could you elaborate on the distinction between the two as it pertains to State governments?

 

But succinctly: State governments as well as municipal governments have duties; therefore they have rights. For example, a State has the duty to protect its citizens; therefore it has the right to do so as well.

Peregrinator, I believe you're misreading the Hohfeld Right-Duty Correlative with regards to states and their citizens.  The duty is imposed upon the state, the right is an entitlement of the citizen.  The state has a duty to protect its citizens, the citizens have a right to be protected by the state.  Rights and duties are about relationships between parties.  You do not have both a right and duty with respect to someone or something, you have either a right OR duty with respect to another party.

[Cambridgeskip]

This is the same WOSM that is apparently OK with the Scouting Association in the UK admitting atheists.

That's a curious point.

 

My understanding was that with the exception of The Netherlands and Sweden that had atheist promises before the policy was brought in during the 1920s that WOSM didn't allow any countries to have atheist promises.

 

When the UK brought in the "alternative" promise I assume that WOSM must have made some kind of policy change. However everything I've seen so far from WOSM seems to imply that the policy remains.

 

A rather curious situation.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Apparently, the UUA considers this to allow atheists into their BSA units:

 

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/boy-scouts-unitarian-universalists-agreement-mean-humanists

[Peter Morales, the president of the UUA, in reply to the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association]

...

I believe that UU congregations that choose to host scouting units have an opportunity to model what an inclusive and welcoming unit can look like—including those who do not believe in God.

...

We have heard from many UU Scouts and Scouting families who don’t believe in God that they were accepted despite BSA national policies.

...

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator, I believe you're misreading the Hohfeld Right-Duty Correlative with regards to states and their citizens.  The duty is imposed upon the state, the right is an entitlement of the citizen.  The state has a duty to protect its citizens, the citizens have a right to be protected by the state.  Rights and duties are about relationships between parties.  You do not have both a right and duty with respect to someone or something, you have either a right OR duty with respect to another party.

Actually, no, I wasn't thinking of Hohfeld at all (in fact I had not heard of the man until yesterday when I looked him up after reading this). I was thinking, rather, that when a duty is imposed upon someone, then that someone has a concomitant right to fulfill that duty. For example, I have a duty to care for my children, therefore I have a right to do the things necessary for their care. And the same is true of societies as well as individuals. We can debate whether X is a duty of State (e.g., the duty to protect its citizens) but what can't be debated is that the State has the right to do those things necessary to fulfill its duties.

[Peregrinator]

What's really weird is that the UK Scouting Association does not admit republicans (that is, those who won't promise to do their duty to the Queen).

[Cambridgeskip]

What's really weird is that the UK Scouting Association does not admit republicans (that is, those who won't promise to do their duty to the Queen).

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes in that it won't (at least in theory) let you join without making an official version of the promise, which for UK nationals includes "duty to the Queen" (Non UK nationals say "duty to the country in which I am now living").

 

No in that doesn't mean there is any rule against republicans.

 

I am 100%, dyed in the wool republican (which this side of the pond mostly means quite left wing), I am completely open about it but there is nothing to stop me joining. I am fully permitted to be open about my political rules and can't be kicked out or prevented from joining.

 

If you are curious as to how I justify making the promise, it's because I understand our constitution.  I may not like how our head of state is appointed but it remains a point of fact who our head of state is. We have a constitutional monarch as our head of state who has no real power* and they are a figure head only. Any promise to the monarch is in that context, not a personal one. So when promising duty to the Queen I am actually promising duty to the country's population as a whole, something I have no issue with.

 

*except when there is a "hung" parliament, ie no one party has an over all majority and where no coalition is formed. In that case the monarch appoints as Prime Minister the member of parliament they believe is most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons. Even then they are advised by the privy council.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

what can't be debated is that the State has the right to do those things necessary to fulfill its duties.

 

 

Sorry, I still say that's 100% wrong.  States have powers to fulfill their duties, not rights.

[qwazse]

Apparently, the UUA considers this to allow atheists into their BSA units:

 

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/boy-scouts-unitarian-universalists-agreement-mean-humanists

[Peter Morales, the president of the UUA, in reply to the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association]

...

I believe that UU congregations that choose to host scouting units have an opportunity to model what an inclusive and welcoming unit can look like—including those who do not believe in God.

...

We have heard from many UU Scouts and Scouting families who don’t believe in God that they were accepted despite BSA national policies.

...

 

I'm afraid that will continue to be hotly contested from national.

If you want an organization that will let boys be athiests, consider http://www.traillifeusa.com/generalfaqs

Are non-Christian youth permitted to join a Trail Life USA Troop?

Our Member policy allows for boys of any faith (or no faith at all) to participate in the program of Trail Life USA.

Local Charter Organizations satisfy the specific ministry goals of their church or organization. In some cases, that may be as an outreach ministry to boys in the community. In other cases, that may be as an in-reach ministry specifically to minister to the families or members of the local church or organization. Therefore, individual Charter Organizations may have more specific membership requirements that limit Troop membership to boys of a certain faith or membership in a certain organization.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"let boys be atheists" in the sense that they will be required to recite a god-oath and proselytized to become Christians, and can't be adult leaders.

[Krampus]

...and yet youth say the pledge of allegiance every day.