IF the boy scouts of america discriminates?

There was a comment on one of the threads about BSA's former program director and alleged purveyor of child porn Douglas S. Smith that stated: If the BSA discriminates, it should not get public funds.  I originally composed this as a response to the comment, then decided to diary this instead.

here is a site that documents several cases of BSA discrimination.  

(more below the fold)

The BSA prohibits little children from participating in cub scouts if they don't profess a belief in God.  Mark Welsh was 6 years old when his dad took him to a cub scout meeting, asked for alternate language to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and was told "People like you" can't join the BSA.  

The Randall twins were 9 years old when they were kicked out of cub scouts because they publicly professed atheism (they later were permitted to continue in BSA under court order, a court order that would be very unlikely to be found in their favor today.)

There is no question that they engage in religious discrimination.  That is a core value of the BSA per their legal briefs and their legal issues website.   So is the discrimination against gays.  I am unsure which thing I find more repugnant, the heavy-handed tactics to make little children religiously correct or the discrimination against gays.

The BSA wants to discriminate, get public funds, and also prohibit other groups from using the word "scout" in its name.  BSA is a brand, like McDonalds or Burger King.  What would be helpful I think is for people to understand that and to insist to their congresscritters that scouting be opened to other groups, since there is an obscure law on the books that grants the BSA a monopoly on the word "scout" by fiat.  That would ease a lot of problems.  BSA is concerned about people who want them to include people that they don't want to include. Perhaps if the monopoly were broken, those people who are currently excluded would quit trying to join the BSA.

Here are links to the recent BSA stories:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/15935/8414

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/131233/388

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/18522/0183

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/17025/4539

•  Yes they discriminate

  and as a private organization they have the "right" to do so.
  The problem with the BSA basically is that they have been subsidized by the government and organizations like the United Way for decades and became sort of quasi-public.
  Given enough pressure - by cutting off their governmental funding and by publicising their discriminatory practices - it is possible that they will change leadership but thus far they have been very resistant.

  The best that can be done at the moment is to oppose public funding and support - and make sure that your local United way doesn't fund them.

  SPeak out loudy whenever appropriate and support other organizations ( Boys club, YMCA...) that DON'T discriminate.

  If you are lucky there is a branch of Scouting for All near you - but they are very small now.
  

  by tiponeill on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

  •  Private organization?

    Only because SCOTUS said they are. But to do so, SCOTUS had to ignore two of its own precedents, one was the Jaycees case and I believe the other was Kiwanis (it was one of the previously all-male service clubs).

    This was in the Dale case, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court, one of the most respected among state supremes for its rulings, wrote an excellent decision (which I highly reccomend, but don't have a link).

    But SCOTUS used a twisted path of so-called logic to rule that BSA was a private organization, even though it met the heretofore accepted definition of a public organization, and that BSA's own stated rules and guidelines didn't mean what they plainly said. They allowed BSA to create a core mission of being anti-gay out of thin air, despite their entire history saying something completely opposite.

    The problem with BSA isn't just its board of directors--it's with its board of advisors (at least I think that's the name). This board is made up of reps from the major sponsor institutions, which, conveniently, feature the catholic church, the Mormons, Southern Baptists, and UMC Men's board (which is more conservative than the denomination, as a whole). This gives the BSA a more rightward slant than even the board of directors, which is already far too conservative.

    I had a female coworker who had worked as an admin asst. at the local scout council and she said the environment was totally frat house, good ol' boy, "this is our clubhouse." In other words, total Peter Pan syndrome. Completely clueless about treating women as equals and very much into getting their own way.

    All in all, I really don't expect them to change any time soon. Now, in addition to their congressional charter, they want a federal law forcing local governments to give them special priviledges, including exemption from non-discrimination laws. In the current congress, I won't be surprised if they win.

    by homogenius on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:16:23 AM PDT

  •  S4A

    I am very familiar with Scouting for All.  They perform an important function.  However, they accept a fundamental premise that I don't accept:

    BSA is equivalent to scouting.

    Therefore it is BSA that needs to change.  While there is merit to the argument that the BSA should change, it is a hard sell.  The vast majority of Americans think discrimination against gays and atheists is acceptable.  They themselves are uncomfortable with gays and atheists, so they are ok with the BSA's position.

    The problem is that the BSA uses political clout & marketing pinache to maintain its monopoly on scouting in the US.  While there are US Scouters who are uncomfortable with multiple scouting groups, I think this majority of people who are ok with BSA's discrimination are not ok with the government supporting a monopoly.  However, I don't think people are aware that this is the result when congress passes laws to "protect" the scouts from the "liberal" attack.  What I am suggesting is that we raise awareness of these points:

    1. Most countries in the world have multiple scouting organizations.  The United States is unusual in this regard.

    2. Multiple scouting organizations are good for scouting because they permit programs with different emphases and philosophy to coexist. (One example would be traditionalists who are not satisfied with modifications that the BSA made to scouting as promulagated by Lord Baden-Powell.  Another would be groups that believe that paid staffers in scouting should be minimal, if they exist at all.)

    3. Multiple scouting organizations are good for the BSA because it permits people who do not meet BSA membership standards to participate in scouting and relieves the pressure on the BSA to accept these people (since, now, BSA presents itself to the public as the only possible way to participate in scouting).

    4. The BSA jealously guards its monopoly using lawsuits and political actions of congresscritters.  Essentially it goes beyond enforcing its own membership standards: it wishes to make scouting inaccessable to these folks anywhere by raising barriers to other groups who wish to serve these children.

    5. Governmental protections that equate BSA to scouting amount to an unfair restraint of trade and are inappropriate.

    Just a few thoughts, perhaps others can think of more.

    by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:32:09 AM PDT

    •  Interesting thought

      I wonder what would happen if U.S. scouting units started turning to the UK or Canadian organizations to sponsor them?
      
      Likely you'd have a lawsuit that the BSA would win (based on the Congressional charter). But it would put them in the position of having to shut down scouting groups, instead of playing the victim in lawsuits aimed at opening the BSA.

      by Hoya90 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:34:57 AM PDT

      •  There is at least one suit the BSA has filed

        out in CA, and one where the group just got the preliminary papers that will precede the suit.  I don't have access to legal databases, but someone who knows something about legal research should be able to find multiple examples.  I do believe that publicizing the suits would help in terms of the political atmosphere.  In this regard, they are definitely the bullies and not the victims.

        by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:40:00 AM PDT

  •  Scouting for All is a great group

    I just hope they can last. There are a number of scout units that have joined their call. However, any unit that does so is likely to get their charter revoked by the National BSA. Already, two regional councils that opposed National have had to back down.
    
    The real issue with scouting is that it is a central battleground for the perceived culture wars. The BSA is dominated by your typical Bush voter that wants a country dedicated to God and free of homosexuals. So they twist the core principles of scouting (tolerance for others) to get their way. I suppose if these same people twist the words of Jesus to say its okay to hate others, I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of principle.

    by Hoya90 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:32:21 AM PDT

•  Just get rid of...

  Just get rid of the tax-exempt status, and force them to get licenses to sell their popcorn and cookies. If they're a private organization, as they claim, who can continue to discriminate, make them act like one in all avenues, including being a vendor.

  I used to be a Cub Scout/Boy Scout, and it was horrible. Cub Scouting was more of a clique, and the Boy Scouting was pushing the popcorn sales. There was little of anything else in my exposure to it.

  Some people feel that scouting is good for girls and boys; I say education and spending time with their parents and good friends is better. What does a little girl learn spending the day in front of a Wal-Mart asking everyone if they'd like to buy cookies? What does a Boy Scout learn of values going door-to-door pimping tins of popcorn?

  Plus their hold on the value of being a devout Christian. Nearly every oath or topic or even the magazines center on how glorious God is. Why not just go to Church, then, instead of buying the uniforms, books, and paying the memberships?

  by Christopher Bair on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:11:25 AM PDT

  •  Disagree

    I think they should get whatever status that a religious group gets, because that is what they are.  And we should proclaim that from the rooftops:  "The BSA is a religious group that requires a religious test (the DRP) for membership.  I don't have a problem with religious groups setting standards for membership, but they should not get government support."  

    by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:36:54 AM PDT

  •  Don't lump the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts...

    ...all together, please.  They are entirely separate organizations and the Girl Scouts do not bother people about their sexuality.  

    The Girl Scouts have actually been the focus of far right attacks with the extremist American Family Association attacking them for refusing to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

    by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:48:42 AM PDT

    •  Thank you

      Thank you for your correction. My apologies.

      I do still abhor going to stores or malls and being solicited before or right after I enter the place (and sometimes when leaving) by ANY organization, including Girl Scouts. If I want GS Cookies, I have a step-niece who's a GS, and I'm sure that many people also know of someone who is in Girl Scouts.

      Just my opinion, of course.

      by Christopher Bair on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:57:40 AM PDT

      •  It's a common misperception...

        ...and now you know the difference, so, no worries.

        I can understand hating the public solicitation.  I'm a sucker, myself, always buying candy and crap from the kids -- I love when the cookies come out.  I guess I'm a contributor to the problem.  Heheh.  Sorry.

        by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:21:26 AM PDT

•  A bit of history

  I found a good link here that lays out the organization and history of the BSA.
  
  One thing to understand about the BSA is the degree to which it is dominated by institutions like the Mormon Church and the U.S. Catholic Church, along with heavy membership from conservative denominations like the Southern Baptists. The drive to exclude gays and atheists/agnostics came out of those communities. Conservatives were not content to let the membership issue be decided at the local level and thus pushed for the National Council to make a blanket policy.
  
  The discrimination against atheists and agnostics will be one of the last things to end in the BSA. Scouting was built around a "for God and country" mentality, that reflected the times of its founding (circa 1908). While it started as a movement that assumed a Christian focus, over the years scouting has expanded to include Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and will accept anyone professing a belief in almost any deity. In theory, you could join as a Wiccan or a worshipper of Ra. But the one thing they won't accept is atheism or agnosticism.
  
  The history of the BSA Charter is also a history of money and power. When the BSA got its charter from Congress, it was because a large number of very wealthy men were involved with the nascent scouting movement and wanted it to succeed. People like J.P. Morgan and William Randolph Hearst were among the early supporters and I suspect they had a lot to do with getting Congressional support.
  
  To the best of my knowledge the BSA does not get public funds. Membership dues and fundraisers pay for the national organization. The way scout units work is that each unit is sponsored by a "chartering organization" that signs a deal with the BSA to use the scout brand. Typically, the chatering organization is a church or a community group (like the Lions Club or American Legion). Schools and military bases used to serve as chartering organizations. But with the BSA's discrimination becoming an explicit issue, those relationships have largely been dissolved. Scout units are still permitted to use school or military base facilities like any other community group, but they do not have formal relationships. The one exception is at the state level where some states and counties charter scout units in their juvenile detention centers. That is a case of public funds going to scouting, but I would expect that a future legal challenge will end that practice.
  
  The BSA is unlikely to change from within. There are simply too few progressive voices in the organization. You are right that overturning the Congressional charter may be a better way to go. However, the BSA still has a "Mom and apple pie" reputation that Congresscritters are unlikely to challenge.
  
  Hope this helps!

  by Hoya90 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:25:53 AM PDT

  •  Public funds

    They do get sweetheart deals, like $1/year leases, etc.  That is equivalent to public funds to my mind.

    by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:43:34 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      I believe they rent(ed?) the National Jamboree site for $1.  Fort AP Hill.

      by TealVeal on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:02:52 AM PDT

      •  I wasn't able to find much on it

        The was a Moonie Times article last year talking about the settlement between DoD and the ACLU. You can see the story here.
        
        According to the ACLU, the Army has spent about $2M since 1981 to make improvements at Fort A.P. Hill to support the Jamboree. The ACLU is trying to make sure that that kind of expenditure stops. The Army has also spend money on other Scout related activities.
        
        However, the ACLU will likely have a hard time winning that one. The Army treats the Jamboree as a major recruiting event, sponsoring a number of activities for the Scouts to encourage young men to join. Given that the money spent is aimed at an Army specific purpose (i.e. recruiting), I'll be surprised if the ACLU can make the case stick.

        by Hoya90 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:03:08 PM PDT

        •  Public Funds

          This is kinda sad, I just got in my email this morning three articles from Dave Rice, who is active with Scouting for All.  Dave was drummed out of scouting when he testified either on James Dale or Tim Curran's case.  Anyway, the articles were about BSA declining membership, membership fraud, and changing the BSA.

          Apparently some of the phantom units in urban areas were the basis for federal grants serving at-risk youth.  I will ask for some documentation, but if it's so, not only were they getting public funds, but they were committing fraud to get the public funds.

          by sberel on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:01:56 AM PDT

•  BSA

  My liberal parents wouldn't let me join because they thought it was a paramilitary organization.

  My own kids have never expressed an interest in it.

  I do like their Thin Mints though. ;)

  by fblau on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:35:43 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    Thin Mints?

    by TealVeal on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:46:35 AM PDT

  •  It's the Girl Scouts . . .

    who sell those tasty cookies. And, as someone pointed out in an earlier comment, the Girl Scouts do not discriminate and should not be lumped in the same category with BSA.

    by Nancy in Berkeley on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:56:39 AM PDT

  •  Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are way different

    I think there is a big difference between BOY and GIRL scouts... they are completely seperate organizations and in fact I think reglious conservatives hate girl scouts (at least they did in MA ~4-5 years ago)... they thought girl scouts of america was an evil organization run by lesbians trying to promote the "gay agenda" while the total opposite was true of boy scouts... at least that is what I remember :P

    The hate/descrimination is throughout the boy scouting organization... I was a boy scout and stayed semi involved for a long time after going to college... I remember going to a national event for a sub-grp called the Order of the Arrow... it was held at a college... the college gay/lesbian group had put up a display about descrimiation against gays and lesbians by BSA.  I went past it and there was a group of regular scouts standing in front of it looking at it in disgust, making various rude comments, and talking about vandilizing it (yey for scout principles in action there)... being a gay male that left an impression on me.

    by Azerin on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:02:37 AM PDT

•  God wants discrimination between right & wrong

  but not relative to race.  Race is a situation of birth where all are equal.  Homosexuality is a choice.  You can not choose your race.  If genetic maipulation someday allows it, we should not go there.  Homosexuals deserve the protection of the law, but not the sanction of law

  by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:08:56 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    BZZZZT wrong!  Being gay is no choice.  You choose to be sexually and emotionally attracted to a bottle of ketchup.  Then we will talk.

    by TealVeal on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:25:13 AM PDT

  •  Please explain to me...

    ...what you mean by "sanction of law".  What is the difference between being "protected" by the law and being "sanctioned" by the law?

    by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:31:18 AM PDT

    •  people deserve protection

      from the (violent) actions of others.  Gay unions deserve no sanction or legal status.  Having made a wrongful choice, they need time to repent the choice.  Just let it be don't ask don't tell, until they consider what they do .

      by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:37:31 AM PDT

      •  So, for example, you would favour...

        ...hate crimes legislation, but you oppose recognition of gay marriage?  A kind of "hate the sin, but love the sinner" position, right?

        Can you tell me why you believe homosexulity is wrong?  To be specific, I'm not addressing the issue of whether people "choose" to be gay.  Just, why is it wrong.

        by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:48:48 AM PDT

        •  sorry for the delay

          actully I do not support hate crime legislation for the most part because as this Terri Schiavo thing proves people can congregate on either side of an issue and as we all know hate springs up on either side of a conflict, armed or otherwise. Punish the act, Equitable and vigouously, not the thought.

          I believe homosexuality is wrong because it is a violation God's law, nature's purpose, societal cohesiveness

          by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:51:17 AM PDT

          •  God's law as expressed in Leviticus?

            Does that mean you are a Biblical literalist?

            And what about laws prohibiting employment or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference?  Do you support those?

            by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:36:19 AM PDT

            •  I think you need good reasons

              to go outside of the literal.  And there are times when that is necessary.  I think mankind has had a difficult time understanding what God wants from us. Witness the various Covenants.  Moreover and more importantly witness the Old and New Testament.  Man's interpretations just got it wrong.  And need arose to set man straight.

              I think such laws are necessary in regard to racial discrimination.  They are more of a mixed bag in regard to employment and housing.  I recognize that each individual needs a job and a home, but don't ask don't tell go a long way toward achieving those necessities.  Toloration is a good thing.  On the whole I would probably leave any such laws in place.  Part of the problem with them though is that they are used as a wedge into society

              by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:01:38 AM PDT

              •  Two separate questions.

                First, why choose the Biblical proscription against homosexuality to adhere to over things that are mentioned in the Bible more often, such as divorce?  In other words, if there are exceptions to taking the Bible literally, why not an exception for homosexuality?

                Second, what if the gay person is atheist or agnostic or simply holds to different Biblical interpretation than you?  Why should your religious beliefs take precedence over theirs?

                Also, sberel, I know that this thread is a bit sideways from your original topic -- just say the word if you want us to take it elsewhere.

                by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:16:59 AM PDT

                •  Knock yourself out (n/t)

                  by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:40:15 AM PDT

              •  Is our conversation over, jondo?

                by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:33:59 PM PDT

                •  Looks Like...

                  In partial answer to your question 2, I would submit the "my God is better than your God and there are more of me than there are of you, so stuff it, and your little kids too" situation that occurred in the late between the UUA and the BSA:

                  main scout page

                  and a neat little article that sums things up nicely:

                  Some conservative and fundamentalist churches have long contended that the BSA generates its own "civil religion," a God-centered, but not necessarily Christ-centered, parallel to orthodox Christianity. They would not allow their church members' sons to do their scouting with religiously generic troops and either insisted on church-based and thus creedily homogeneous troops or invented movements analogous to the Scouts. To them, the Scout oath looked deist and implied the sufficiency of "natural religion."

                  This was not a problem for most American Christians, since they see enough overlap between their biblical and Christ-focused faith and the Scout religion, ethos, and oath.  But when the Unitarian Universalists come along to test the stretch of the BSA, they do tend to smoke out a realization that the Scout religion is a particular faith.  It may be an expansive and generous one, but it brings with it assumptions about faith and religion that, ironically, the theological left and right both discern as being religiously particularist--and thus in need of being challenged in church and court.

                  And incidentally, just yesterday, a Jewish gentleman posted on the UU-Scouting listserv that he is having a problem with the prayers, which are supposed to be interfaith in a mixed faith group, being Christian, always.  His comment was that you can't negotiate with the BSA, they simply won't change.  So even theists have some religious problems with BSA.

                  by sberel on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:17:30 AM PDT

                  •  A shame the conversation ended.

                    I like a good debate, and things were just getting interesting.

                    The UU's place such a high value on diversity and tolerance that I don't really see how they can satisfactorily resolve their dispute with the BSA without changing the nature of the BSA as it presently exists.  That would be just a mammoth task.  

                    Maybe the UU's should focus on breaking the monopoly.  Getting the monopoly broken might be an easier fight if it can be positioned as a compromise.  The BSA wouldn't like it, but if they had to choose between their monopoly and accepting gays and unbelievers into their organization, I think they'd pick giving up the monopoly.

                    by martianchronic on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:23:28 PM PDT

                    •  Breaking development

                      Heh-heh.  There is a super-secret group called the UU Scouting Association, which is so secret, it doesn't even contact its members, except to ask for dues.  This super-secret group, the members of whom seem to think radicals at the UUA who knew nothing about scouting (like former Eagle Scout John Beuhrens) were the problem, have brokered a super-secret deal with the BSA for recognition of its own religious emblem.

                      Members of UU-Scouting have asked to see the content of the super-secret award; we have been told that "when we get a web presence" we will post information about it(?!! WTF?)

                      Meanwhile, I have been working to get Baden-Powell Scout association USA to come to the UUA GA in Fort Worth (their corporate HQ).  Also the support division for the Southwest UU conference is in Fort Worth & will work to get their materials in the religious ed person's hands.  So, yeh, breaking the monopoly is where I think the action is.  But you have to support the alternate groups to justify breaking the monopoly, otherwise you look like you are just trying to tear down the BSA.  

                      Anyway, on another front, S4A seeks signatures for an interfaith letter.  Specifically, I just got a message stating they are looking for Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish religious leaders to sign the letter.

                      It takes activity on multiple fronts to effect social change.  Eleanor Holmes Norton noted this about the civil rights movement.  In the end it took everyone, Andrew Young, Malcolm X, MLK, the ACLU, etc, etc.  All kind-of doing their own thing but exerting pressure for change.

                      by sberel on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:26:06 PM PDT

                      •  A secret scouting association?!

                        Wonder if it's so secret, the kids don't even know about it.  

                        Why does it seem like the right wing is rife with front groups and astro-turf operations?  It's almost pathological at this point.

                        by martianchronic on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:49:37 PM PDT

                        •  Parents

                          They are just parents who felt they were hard done by in the dispute, and they felt the UUA should have backed down and acceded to BSA's demands AFAICT.  So they did this side process to get a religious emblem program approved.  They also have a seat on a subcommittee, "representing" the UU's.

                          What astounds me is that the BSA let them, while there is some precedent for "affiliate" organizations of religious groups (like the UM Mens group) serving on BSA committees and dealing with the BSA, the UUSO is not an affiliate of the UUA.  It's just a group of UU's claiming to represent UU Scouters.  

                          When the Wiccans tried to get their religious emblem approved, they were asked to make revisions to their materials and in the end were refused.  By one report, they were never told why (someone from the Wiccans involved in the process).  By some reports, because there was no national group.  I found on a website that said a religion had to have 25 chartering organizations to qualify,  there is no way UUSO meets that criteria.  I have come to the conclusion that the BSA just makes stuff up as they go along in order to justify whatever they feel like doing.  Typical, yes, of the right wing, which holds a might makes right mentality, generally speaking.

                          by sberel on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:32:08 AM PDT

      •  jondo? Where did you go?

        by martianchronic on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:35:20 AM PDT

  •  That whizzing sound

    was the point going over your head.

    Be my guest, join and support BSA, which promotes your religious beliefs vis-a-vis homosexuality.  Just curious, do you think they are right to exclude little children because those children don't have a religiously correct belief system?

    At any rate, the issue I raise is not opening BSA to the people who aren't God's and BSA's chosen people: it's opening scouting to groups in addition to BSA.

    by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:10:39 AM PDT

    •  yes I think that is their Choice

      I do not favor that in the context of the Scouting Organization.   If some one wants to do something independent for kids who do not believe that is their choice and likely a good thing within the confines of the example

      by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:55:28 AM PDT

•  how can you say it is not a choice?

  are you not an individual who can control your actions

  by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:29:00 AM PDT

•  Before you go off half-cocked

  I am an Eagle Scout and feel that I go a lot out of scouting.  I do believe that they should be entirely private and I have donated money to them.  (Not the United Way, btw.)

  Should they descriminate?  Tough call.  I would argue no.  Should they be allowed to?  If they're private, sure.

  Does Scouting offer something of value to America's youth?  You bet.  Is it for everyone?  Clearly not (especially some of those posting above).

  One of the problems is that an organization like this needs a certain minimum size in order to be able to function, and as they get to these sizes a lot of funky things start cropping up: copyrights, "national" requirements that may be at odds with one community or another, tax-exempt status, and fund-raising.

  Take a good look at the YMCA:  Young Men's CHRISTIAN Association.  They descriminate, by definition.

  by polecat on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

  •  YMCA/BSA

    Funny you mention it.  The BSA program was developed in large part by the YMCA.  In fact, in the early days of BSA, Catholics created their own group because they were uncomfortable with the closeness of the YMCA/BSA relationship.

    BSA is not equivalent to scouting.  BSA is one of a myriad ways to do scouting.  Did I say they should be required to accept people who don't conform to their membership standards and that they should be public, not private?  No I did not.  That is precisely my issue with S4A.  They want to make BSA change.

    Did I say that BSA had no value?  No I did not.  I said that I find their religious discrimination against little children repugnant.  I am sorry, but I do.  That doesn't mean the kids and youth who are not discriminated against don't get value out of the program.  Of course they do.  

    What I said is this:  The BSA is using congress to keep a monopoly on scouting.  That is not appropriate.  Other groups should also be permitted to do scouting, and call it scouting.  Monopolies are bad.  Government support of monopolies is worse.  Letting other scouting groups grow is good for the BSA and the public.  

    by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:00:29 AM PDT

    •  just for disclosure

      we are Catholic.  Don't know the early history,  was the Catholic group formed within the context of the Scout's Organization or was it seperate?  But they did share the commonality of a belief in God.

      by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:08:27 AM PDT

      •  Scout's Organization

        What do you mean by that?  I don't think at that time WOSM existed.  At that time there were multiple scouting groups in the US.  Remember the early 1900's: there was extremely virulent anti-catholicism in the culture, and the YMCA was closely tied to protestant evangelicals.  So there was a Catholic Scouts, I don't recall the formal name, I can look it up if you really want to know.  Sure, both Catholics and Protestants believe in God.  So what? Lord Baden-Powell himself was very clear that unchurched youth should be permitted to participate in scouting, and that they should be dealt with in an indirect manner (through service to others, not through requiring a profession of faith).  

        by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:16:50 AM PDT

        •  Essentailly then there was no umbrella

          organization in the US or the World if I understand you correctly.  Now they have evolved.  Their directors and advisors determine who may fall under their organization.   Lord Baden-Powell is owed a debt and respect.  But I don't think you can form something outside the parent organization and still have it officially a Scout organization.   Does not mean there is not room for an organization with a different purpose but it just would not be officially Scouts.
           

          by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:43:41 AM PDT

          •  Parent organizations?

            Please do some research about the international scouting movement.  

            There are two world scouting organizations, WOSM and WFIS.  So when you act like there is "a" parent scouting organization that is wrong from the start.  The WOSM (generally) only allows one member per country - so as a practical matter, most countries have umbrella groups that in turn have as members various scouting organizations.  The WFIS has a different set of rules regarding membership.  But the existence of two international groups on its face belies your argument that there is some kind of "parent" organization functioning as the scout police.

            The BSA no matter what they or you may think do not own scouting.  It is not up to them to say who gets to participate in scouting.  If a British parent issues warrants to a scouting group in Nevada, that should be precisely none of their business.  The problem is that they don't want British or Canadian groups to issue warrants in the US.  Neither do they want US groups to arise on their own.  So they sue people who start alternative groups.

            by sberel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:17:55 AM PDT

  •  I have a 14 year old in Scouts halfway to an Eagle

    This summer he will play lacrosse for an Indian travel team.  And he will learn a lot about race and cultural and religious differences.

    by jondo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:02:31 AM PDT

•  Signs of a group that is too big

  This group is too big, clearly.  The most obvious problem is one of administration -- you have different people with different agenda pulling one way or the other.

  That it has survived this long is fantastic and amazing.  That it is essentially an auxiliary to the army with a lot of people arguing for control of one kind or another is natural and disappointing.

  I would like to keep all of the good and reject all of the bad.  How do we do this?  (From within.)  How do we get them to pay attention?  (Money.)

  Or, am I being too cynical?

  by polecat on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:50:48 AM PDT