Charlotte church refuses to allow Mormans to be leaders

[Abel Magwitch]

Just adding my 2 cents - the BSA allows a charter organization to discriminate. (I know, discriminate is a bad non pc word).

 

for example - a unit being sponsored by a Catholic church could state that only Catholic boys may join that particular unit. Is this discrimination?

 

My council has a Hungarian troop where they will only accept members who speak Hungarian. All others need not apply. (They even where different uniforms and follow a different Scout program, yet they are allowed to be registered with the BSA).

 

There are in school units in my council who will only accept members from within the school. So if Johnny lives next store to Joey, but does not attend Joey's school, he is not allowed to join Joey's Pack. (And how a public school can discriminate is another story altogether.)

 

This Charlotte church has its beliefs. They are a private organization. It is obvious that they do not accept the beliefs of Mormons. What's the problem? Are they saying something wrong?

 

On a final note, my council one year added a separate week of summer camp where only LDS units were allowed to attend. Did I agree with this? No, but that is my opinion. But I do find it interesting that my own council decided to discriminate on who could attend this week of summer camp based soley on religion.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[sherminator505]

I find it interesting that the BSA makes it much easier to segregate than to include.

[Beavah]

I'm pretty sure Dale allows a private organization to set its membership rules. Period. No compelling reason to justify those rules. It has the rights to set them. Beavah can probably elaborate.

 

Nah, not quite that broad, eh?

 

The Dale argument was framed in terms of expressive association. The BSA is allowed to choose leaders in a way that aligns with their stated goals of teachin' character and values as the BSA defines values. So if BSA defines "Clean" and "Morally Straight" to include sexually straight, then they have a right to set leadership standards that reflect that, because teaching character and values is the primary purpose for which they are associated. In the same way, a Presbyterian Church might exclude a Mormon as youth leader (or vice versa), because the purpose of the people of the church associating is to advocate for the Presbyterian view of Christianity.

 

Da KKK can set racially based membership rules for the same reason, eh? Their expressive purpose, da reason for their association, is to advocate a certain view of race relations. Admitting members of all races would undermine their freedom to advocate for their views. But the Chamber of Commerce, another private membership organization, cannot set race-based membership rules if they are subject to a public access act. Da expressive purpose of the Chamber of Commerce is to promote the development of business, not comment on race relations. Da government does have a compelling interest, because excluding people of one race affects their access to tangible economic goods and benefits, and the government's public access act does not infringe on the private organization's purpose for associating.

 

I find it interesting that the BSA makes it much easier to segregate than to include.

 

Don't get where you're comin' from, sherm. In this case the BSA isn't doin' anything, the CO is.

 

Da BSA could choose to segregate, and grant charters only to those who agree with someone's view of proper openness to diversity. That would exclude those like da Mormons and the Catholics and this Presbyterian Church and that Hungarian immigrant troop. Put up a big shingle on Council offices "No Mormon organizations need apply."

 

We choose not to, and instead welcome lots of diverse organizations and views into da organization. I think that's a good thing. It respects people's differences, while also providin' a common community of Scoutin' that transcends the differences.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Abel Magwitch]

...I find it interesting that the BSA makes it much easier to segregate than to include...

 

...Don't get where you're comin' from, sherm. In this case the BSA isn't doin' anything, the CO is...

 

Beavah, the BSA is simply closing its eyes and allowing its chartered organizations to exclude if they so choose. In essence they are washing their hands while still allowing things to happen. Do you not find a problem with the BSA opening the camp for a particular religious group of Scouts while excluding all others? (by the way this only happened once. Now the LDS units camp with the non-LDS units).

 

I have observed through the years that the BSA will allow many things - As long as it brings in funding.

 

Here is where I am coming from - The BSA "condones" the exclusion of its members amongst its chartered organizations. The BSA accepts that it's OK for chartered organizations to exclude if they so choose.

 

Personally, I have a problem with this condoned exclusion the BSA allows, but that's just my opinion.

 

An old handbook om mine had these words concerning the uniform. These words spoke not about exclusion, rather is spoke about brotherhood. I found it disappointing when I first learned from a professional that it's ok for a chartered organization to exclude boys from their units and I was particularly disappointed when the non-LDS units (which I am a part of) were excluded from their own council camp by the BSA.

 

This all reminds me of Dr. Suesss story about the Sneeches.

 

"There is real significance to that khaki uniform. First of all, it shows that you belong."

 

"You are a member of the largest youth movement the free world has ever seen. It stands for the spirit of true democracy."

 

"It puts rich and poor on an equal basis in the spirit of brotherhood."

 

It is my opinion that "an equal basis in the spirit of brotherhood" should bring acceptance to a higher level while taking exclusion out of the picture.

 

Abel

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[jhankins]

The only people being hurt by this nonsense are the boys we're trying to gift the values of Scouting.

 

I'm a Baptist Scouter with a Lutheran Lamb award and I'm the committee chair for an LDS Ward (yes, all 4 units). My experience is, the more diverse your organization, the more challenges behind the scenes, but also the more reward and life lessons for the boys. An LDS troop with Hindu, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Wiccan and LDS is a powerful and unique place to be.

 

This church is being short-sighted by not allowing the parents to be leaders, but the boys could still participate without parents being leaders.

[BadenP]

The old saying if it weren't for the adults scouting would be run a whole lot smoother, I think the same thing could be said of the religious influence in scouting, as this thread clearly illustrates.

[TNScoutTroop]

There seems to be a common theme in the thinking of many posters here, that Scouting would be better off and more successful, if the influence of religious organizations was eliminated.

 

But we see a rather striking irony here: there already IS a large American Scouting organization that has done precisely that. Nothing's certain till it's tried, but it would certainly seem probable that this alternative US Scouting organization would be willing to embrace an influx of ex-Boy Scouts with open arms. . . . and yet most of the same posters here seem not to like that Scouting organization very much.

 

Why is that?

 

TN Scout Troop

[shortridge]

... while also providin' a common community of Scoutin' that transcends the differences.

 

I'd put an addendum on this statement by Beavah: ... if the sponsoring organizations want them to be transcended.

 

A common community only exists if the leaders and COs buy in to that idea and don't insist on segregating themselves from the broader community.

 

=============

 

I know that churches are the biggest source of COs. I just wonder how many of them use Scouting as an integral part of their youth program, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does. My guess - and it's just that - is that most church COs have the kind of hands-off, non-involved relationship we hear about in so many threads here where no one even knows who the COR or IH are. [alert: heading into I/P territory, sorry! ] So I really wonder about the claim that if gays and atheists were allowed, tens of thousands of church COs would drop their troops and packs and crews immediately.

[TNScoutTroop]

"So I really wonder about the claim that if gays and atheists were allowed, tens of thousands of church COs would drop their troops and packs and crews immediately."

 

That's a local question, with local answers. Pollsters could probably find a broad answer, of course.

 

However, in the years prior to deciding we needed to roll our own, so to speak, we collectively encountered a number of troops, with a number of CO's, mostly churches. NONE of the CO's were actively involved with the troops. The 8 troops we can think of quickly include 1 Kiwanis, 2 UMC, 1 PCA, 1 Church of God, 1 Roman Catholic, & 2 S Baptist. Except for the Kiwanis and UMC troops, all 5 others would have immediately dropped the troops the minute word reached the pastor or church leaders that the troop was accepting OPENLY atheistic or homosexual leaders.

 

The UMC churches might not, if it the decision was made solely by the paid staff. But to the extent the congregation got involved, they might. We don't know the churches well enough to predict.

 

With the Kiwanis, we have no idea.

 

Still that's 5 of 8 that would drop Scouts, and 3 more that might.

 

Another possibility to consider would be that, if the LDS left the BSA, they might employ legal and political means to 'break' the BSA monopoly on Scouting, and to create a Scout organization that explicitly (rather than somewhat stealthily) allowed CO's to define the religious and ethical content of the troop. They'd need to find a partner, say the Southern Baptist Convention, to convince others that they were establishing a Scout organization open to all orthodox Judeo-Christian denominations, rather than a stealth Mormon organization. But, if they found such a partner, the results could be catastrophic for the BSA.

 

Given that Councils are locally owned, you could easily face the specter of having individual councils try to break away from the BSA and affiliate with the "new" Scout organization.

 

A Scouting organization that explicitly encouraged conservative Christian churches to form troops that reflected their values might be able to charter brand new troops at a pretty rapid rate, at least in this area. And, given the 'red neck' quality of many conservative churches, the Scoutcraft of these troops might, by drawing on the skills country rednecks brought with them, rapidly exceed the Scoutcraft of typical BSA troops in this area.

 

The BSA, dealing with the loss of funding from the LDS (20%?) plus losing at least 15% of other troops, and struggling to cut staff and fixed costs rapidly, might find it impossible to mount an effective legal battle. In addition, such a battle would be very public, would expose the "very cynical bylaws" Beavuh often refers to, and would erode public confidence in the BSA.

 

It seems likely that, after the BSA lost 35+% of its Scouts overnight, it would then continue to loose boys at a rate rivaling the urban Scouting disaster. Given that the only substantial new markets for Scouts (conservative church and home schooled youth) would gravitate much more toward the new organization than the BSA, all ideas of "growing" the BSA would disappear for years.

 

Of course, all this is speculation. Until it's actually tried, no one *knows* what would happen.

 

TN Scout Troop

[Abel Magwitch]

I forgot to add this - in the city where my council resides, during the Scoutreach days, there are county housing complexes. There was a push within my district to get more units started within these complexes. One of the district members at large informed us that they were steering away from churches as sponsoring institutions intead they were going to target these county run facilities as he stated "there is money the council could get from the county if they concentrated their efforts on the county housing complexes. Needless to say, the packs and troops never really existed, but they were a source of youth names for membership numbers. There were a few that actually tried to maintain a unit, but then again, the unit was only open to those who lived within the housing units.

 

Bottom line in my council, council was not interested in traditional units within the city. They were interested in the additional funding from the county and getting some more fictitious members for the council's membership counts. As I have already stated, exclusion is acceptable by the BSA in my council as long as there are $$ attached to it. The few remaining traditional units in my district received very little service from the council when this all began in the late 90s and it continues today. Currently my district committee only has 5 registered committee members with no district commissioner. New bogus units are being formed complete with paid paraprofessionals hired as Scoutmasters and Cubmasters.

 

By the way, I am an active COR. My council has chosen to disregard the active COR with the blessing of the executive board.

 

The BSA should not condone sponsoring institutions excluding members for religious or any other reasons.

 

Abel

 

[Gary_Miller]

TNScoutTroop"Another possibility to consider would be that, if the LDS left the BSA, they might employ legal and political means to 'break' the BSA monopoly on Scouting, and to create a Scout organization that explicitly (rather than somewhat stealthily) allowed CO's to define the religious and ethical content of the troop. They'd need to find a partner, say the Southern Baptist Convention, to convince others that they were establishing a Scout organization open to all orthodox Judeo-Christian denominations, rather than a stealth Mormon organization. But, if they found such a partner, the results could be catastrophic for the BSA."

 

If the LDS Church decided to break from scouting I don't think there would be "any legal and political means to 'break' the BSA monopoly on Scouting". The LDS Church uses scouting as its activity arm for its young men and it has for the last 98yrs. They choose BSA after careful scrutiny and observation because of the values it offers the young men.

 

Its my opion if something happened where the LDS Church decided to leave scouting it would just start its own program within the church that had the same type values as BSA currently has. There would be no need to for partners nor would it have to be stealthy or would it need to call it scouting.

 

The LDS Church has many strong and smart individuals who could put a program together within months that would provide an activity program with values that the church wants for its Young men and boys, with or without awards. They already have such programs for their girls and young women.

[ScoutNut]

>>"My council has a Hungarian troop where they will only accept members who speak Hungarian. All others need not apply. (They even where different uniforms and follow a different Scout program, yet they are allowed to be registered with the BSA)."

[shortridge]

I do not understand why some of you have such a problem with the Charter Organization concept.

 

There is no discrimination involved. The CO OWNS the unit, and uses it to further it's OWN purposes with it's OWN youth. Sometimes those youth are a fairly broad spectrum, diverse, population. Sometimes it is a very narrow population. However, the point is, it is THEIR population.

 

Perhaps people have "a problem" with the CO structure because there's almost nothing else out there to compare it to. It's an utterly foreign system to many folks.

 

Some have compared it to business franchises, but that's not entirely accurate. A franchisor has to operate the business within certain parameters and abide by all corporate policies, and it can't cherry-pick its customers - he or she has to appeal to a wide potential customer base to stay afloat. If a McDonald's franchise decided that it would only serve Mormons, for example, I doubt it would last very long.

[ScoutNut]

McDonald's is a for-profit, public restaurant.

 

BSA, the Protestant, and LDS churches, are private organizations.

 

A BSA Charter Organization has to operate within certain parameters and abide by corporate policies. However, they are also allowed to "customize" the program to fit their specific organization, as long as it is within those parameters and policies.

 

In your for-profit example, franchisee's are also allowed some flexibility to customize. A store on one corner might be selling a product for $ XX cheaper than the same type of franchise store, is selling the exact same product, 3 blocks away. Store #1 might carry different products than store #2 of the same corporate franchise. Depending on the franchise, some stores might not want to put the corporate logo on their storefront.

 

Charter schools are also a similar concept. They are formed so that they can offer programs customized to fit a specific group (sometimes a very narrow one), or community, while still meeting the educational policies of the state.

 

This is not a new, or radical idea.

[BadenP]

As was mentioned earlier 98% of the CO's I have come across really do have a hands off and uninvolved approach to the units they sponsor. When there is a problem it usually seems to involve a CO that is a church, and that's when defining the CO's rights becomes an issue. When I was a DE there was a church sponsored unit whose pastor felt that there was not enough religious emphasis in the troop, the SM was not of that faith and threatened to resign and the tensions were building in the troop leadership. The end result was a meeting of all parties and a amicable solution was worked out. My point, as long as you have churches as sponsors the question of the pastors versus the scout leaders priorities will always be an issue, and the CO will always prevail.