From: Stuart Bechman

Date: Wed Apr 26, 2000 6:23pm

Today, we hear that the Supreme Court is holding hearings on a New Jersey case involving the BSA kicking out a leader who was discovered to be gay.

As most of us know, BSA's discrimination policies also extend to atheists / agnostics and to religious beliefs that do not recognize a transcendental being.

Up until now, the public reaction from the gay/atheist/liberal religious community has been one of outrage, complaining that such policies are contrary to the goals of Scouting and culminating in several lawsuits around the country. The results of these lawsuits has resulted in mixed rulings, finally convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to step in this year and rule on the New Jersey case this July.

But I would like to suggest that, instead of the BSA policy being a travesty, it actually creates an unprecedented opportunity for these oppressed groups.

I believe it is time for our communities to consider forming an alternative scouting organization. The more I think about it, the more feasible it seems to me and the more power I see such an effort bringing our communities. Consider:

One of the most chronic issues that I have heard from the freethought community across the country since I first became involved has been the lack of appeal to youth; for the most part, the atheist/humanist community tends to be much older than the general community.

The gay community, on the other hand, is a very young community made up primarily of people from about 13 to 40. (Yes, there are older gays, of course; but the public discrimination of gays is less of an issue for them. They've usually learned to deal with it by that age.) They are left to deal with issues of exclusion and ostracization from much of society, many committing suicide over these attitudes; and there are few support organizations that are willing to include them and address their issues.

Many BSA troops are sponsored by government agencies, such as schools, fire departments, and police departments. The rulings against the BSA to-date - including in California - have put such agencies in the uncomfortable
position of being at risk of being sued for violating the First Amendment for being a BSA troop sponsor. The entire city of Chicago has recently had to drop their BSA sponsorships because of that risk, thus abandoning thousands of at-risk youth who would benefit from a similar program. Other cities are likely to follow suit. This creates an incredible vacuum that we can step in to fill with little effort.

Yet, the objectives of the BSA ("Helping young men develop moral values") have almost uncontested respect outside of the currently litigated issues of intolerance. If gays & atheists were allowed to participate in BSA, I would argue that it would bring instant public goodwill for the gay & atheist communities that sponsored their own BSA troops. Alternatively, I believe that groups sponsoring any BSA-like organization would benefit from similar public goodwill as well as provide an important and valuable outreach and support mechanism for their communities.

Part of the overall respect that the BSA has across the country is reflected in the large number of organizations that provide funding and support for BSA. All of these funding organizations have been caught in the middle of the current feuds and realize that the public litigation reflects badly on them. I would think that offering them a similar, alternative organization to support that does not discriminate against anybody would give them an easy 'out' to their dilemma. It would have the additional effect of impacting BSA in their pocketbook, taking away funding that they have been able to regularly rely on up until now.

There is a huge group of ex-Scouts, myself included, that are quite proud of their participation in the BSA in their youth but have become overly disillusioned with the growing influence of the religious right in the organization. Many of us have an immense amount of experience in the organization and would be thrilled to bring those skills and knowledge to a new organization that respects the tolerance and diversity that we thought the BSA stood for.

Instead of perpetuating our negative public perception as victims and whiners and trouble-makers, we would turn that around and show that we are doing something positive for our youth.

This BSA controversy currently has a high public profile in the national media. Announcing the formation of an alternative group in the next few months is sure to attract a lot of coverage without much effort.

Isn't offering alternatives part of the American Way? I would think that the Religious Right would have a hard time attacking such an effort. At the same time, an alternative organization would create more pressure than anything else I can imagine for the BSA to clean up its act. If they don't reform, they'll become obsolete, and the alternative organization will grow.

We would not have to reinvent or invest very much. Except for the intolerance, we could borrow wholesale from the BSA model in our new organization. The current BSA is a wonderful model of using volunteers to the maximum extent and having participants pay their own way to minimize the burden on sponsoring organizations. You can't find a stronger volunteer-outreach model than the BSA anywhere.

Finally, setting up a BSA-alternative made up of the groups the original BSA is trying to exclude would give us quite a bit of say in setting up a program that more closely matches our world views without having to accommodate the Religious Right. This would not be possible if we were allowed to join today's BSA: The Mormon church holds 25% of the troop sponsorships, a majority of the seats on the BSA board, and has over 400,000 boys in the BSA program; the Catholic church holds another 15% of the troop sponsorships, several seats of its own on the board, and has over 300,000 boys in the program. Even if the Supreme Court rules against them and requires the BSA to open up its program to gays and atheists, the organization itself will continue to give short shrift to such members and
push their own theocratic agendas for some time. Starting an alternative BSA organization would allow us to sidestep those issues entirely and remove the offensive parts of the program with little internal controversy.

Here's the groups that could possibly be corralled to support this new national organization: Atheist/Humanist groups; Gay/Lesbian/Bi-/Transgender groups; the Unitarian/Universalists; Buddhist groups; Reform Jews; government agencies; and other liberal Protestant Christian groups that are uncomfortable with the intolerance being shown by the BSA and who would support an alternative if it existed. It wouldn't match the size of the current BSA, but I would think it would be quite enough to make a feasible alternative.

(Although fairly irrelevant, there's also the interesting conjecture about taking the alt-BSA charter to Congress and seeing if they would authorize a national charter as the BSA has. It could really put a lot of legislators in a major policy dilemma, which I wouldn't mind seeing.)

I'd like to hear more from others about this view.

-Stuart Bechman

 

From: BKirkhart

Date: Wed Apr 26, 2000 7:33pm

" Instead of perpetuating our negative public perception as victims and whiners and trouble-makers, we would turn that around and show that we are doing something positive for our youth."

We've thought about it before, but at that time didn't have anyone with your confidence we could pull it off.

At the convention, I talked with the folks from Camp Quest, who would like AU to sponsor a West Coast session this summer. I told them we'd look into it.

It seems the two could be coordinated, with CQ a kick-off for Free Scouts. (Probably not the name, just a working title.)

Of course, I know nothing about what it will involve, but we can look into it with little effort.

Bobbie

From: Harvey Tippit

Date: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:41pm...

There are a few openly gay members serving in the Congress, including Barney Frank. Maybe they would sponsor the organization--or sports figures, such as the tennis stars Betty Jean King and Navratilova (sorry I can't recall her
proper name now). Your plan, somewhat refined and elaborated and with some financial basis, might be something they would want to put their names behind, if they saw it as viable. Likewise some gay and free thinking entertainment figures. Some big-bucks donors would get it in the air. I am afraid the expenses would be quite substantial: printing, mailing, contacting, traveling, and others.

From: Stuart Bechman

Date: Wed Apr 26, 2000 10:18pm
Oy, I forgot about Camp Quest. Of course, that's just a single annual event; but perhaps it could be expanded upon to become the foundation of a full-fledged alt-BSA organization.

I think that putting on a summer camp has got to be much more involved and expensive than sponsoring local troops. Local troops are organized very similar to regular AU meetings but with an additional camping trip every
once in awhile.

Still, regardless what else develops, I hope that we do sponsor a West Coast Camp Quest next year.

-Stuart

----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Schultz

This is an interesting thought, and we should discuss this again after the Supreme Court issues its ruling (before July 1, generally speaking).

However, don't forget the power of the federal charter, which gives the BSA a monopoly on its trademarks, programs, uniforms, etc. etc. etc. If the BSA wins, you can count on them suing us if we start anything that even **thinks** about smelling too much like "scouting."

Speaking as a former Boy Scout/Explorer Scout myself, I'm sure there are lots of us in the "discriminated against" community who would willingly bind together to promote some alternative program. But it isn't clear that such a thing would be necessary if the Supreme Court rules against the BSA. Lets consider the options and what our response should be in either case.

=====

BSA Wins:

1. Here, the idea would be to put pressure on all groups who are either legally prohibited from discriminating (i.e., as the Supreme Court of New Jersey noted, all governmental bodies), including schools, etc., to withdraw all "special privileges" and other affiliations.

2. We could, as you suggest, form an alternative organization. However, we cannot call it "scouting" or use the word "boy scouts" in any way unless....

3. We petition through Congress and the Courts to declare that the existing Boy Scout group has forfeited its Federal Charter since the Congress may not "establish" a religious group, and the Boy Scouts as they exist after winning this case will be, to all intents and purposes, and "established" religious group. The remedy we request is that all right, title, and interests in the federal charter be transferred to a new, non-religious group, which WE will have so-conveniently have formed.

4. FYI, even the Methodists have intervened on behalf of gays. They were the lead in the Amicus brief filed by them, the Chuch of Christ, Reform Jews, the Episcopalians, and the UUs. See: http://boyscout.home.texas.net/VARCHRBR.pdf

5. In the above brief, those groups claim to represent ** 60% ** of the boys in scouting. If we can turn them to an alternative leadership group that would inherit the federal charter, then we wouldn't be a "small" group at all!

=====

BSA Loses:

1.Here, the problem is that (technically speaking) atheists and agnostics aren't legally addressed; although for the purposes of New Jersey, the BSA probably couldn't keep us out.

2. The strategy here should be to convince the BSA to appoint some gays and atheists to a national council to eliminate discrimination (or something like that). For what its worth, Jeff Lowder is an Eagle Scout and would be an excellent atheist member of any such body.

3. We should investigate how the national board positions are actually filled, and if the BSA loses, consider court action to remove those members who have advocated this "illegal policy" to discriminate. The problem with this course of action is obtaining the proper legal "standing" to sue..... But the BSA is subject to Congressional oversight, and we should be able to get somebody like Barney Frank to at least get some hearings going. 4. Everyone with an atheist boy could file suit and inundate the BSA with lawsuits in all states. They've been able to keep us down so far, but if they lose this case, it'll be "Katie bar the door" on litigation, which must, in turn, motivate the necessary policy changes. (I still don't understand how the Girl Scouts managed to avoid this sort of thing. They have never had this sort of problem so far as I am aware.....)

====

Either way, we should have a strategy figured out and ready to go whenever the Supreme Court announces its result.

Just a few random thoughts in reply to your thoughts, below......

Bill

From: Monica

Date: Thu Apr 27, 2000 10:38am

All interesting comments. I'm very interested in starting Camp Quest out here, and I think that would be a great jumping-off point for an alternative scouting organization.

Comments inline...

 

From: Bill Schultz

This is an interesting thought, and we should discuss this again after the Supreme Court issues its ruling (before July 1, generally speaking).

However, don't forget the power of the federal charter, which gives the BSA a monopoly on its trademarks, programs, uniforms, etc. etc. etc. If the BSA wins, you can count on them suing us if we start anything that even **thinks** about smelling too much like "scouting."

When I worked for Kinko's, we learned in our Copying Protocol class a lot about trademarks. One story they told us was about a copy shop, somewhere in the US, called Kink's. They used the same font in their logo, and even had the same decor.

Kinko's lost the lawsuit.

They might very well sue, but they would be unlikely to win, especially if the main thing we have in common is the word "Scout" which is hardly their invention. Different color uniforms, different curricula, etc., and we'd be clear, though it might cost some hefty court time to prove it.

Speaking as a former Boy Scout/Explorer Scout myself, I'm sure there are lots of us in the "discriminated against" community who would willingly bind together to promote some alternative program.

But it isn't clear that such a thing would be necessary if the Supreme Court rules against the BSA. Lets consider the options and what our response should be in either case.

 

=====

BSA Wins:

1. Here, the idea would be to put pressure on all groups who are either legally prohibited from discriminating (i.e., as the Supreme Court of New Jersey noted, all governmental bodies), including schools, etc., to

withdraw all "special privileges" and other affiliations.

Perhaps a better strategy is to start the program, within our community, and wait for the issue to rise again (as it inevitably does) and when such organizations cry "well, but there's no alternative..." then we speak up. Gives us a chance to take flight as it were, before trying to take on the Scouts directly.

2. We could, as you suggest, form an alternative organization. However,

we cannot call it "scouting" or use the word "boy scouts" in any way

unless....

3. We petition through Congress and the Courts to declare that the existing Boy Scout group has forfeitted its Federal Charter since the Congresss may not "establish" a religious group, and the Boy Scouts as they exist after winning this case will be, to all intents and purposes, and "established" religious group. The remedy we request is that all right, title, and interests in the federal charter be transferred to a new, non-religious group, which WE will have so-conveniently have formed.

That sounds ambitious, but brilliant. I love it.

4. FYI, even the Methodists have intervened on behalf of gays. They were the lead in the Amicus brief filed by them, the Chuch of Christ, Reform Jews, the Episcopaleans, and the UUs. See:http://boyscout.home.texas.net/VARCHRBR.pdf

 

Interesting. It looks as though by pursuing this intolerance toward gays, BSA may be digging its own grave with its religious supporters.

5. In the above brief, those groups claim to represent ** 60% ** of the boys in scouting. If we can turn them to an alternative leadership group that would inherit the federal charter, then we wouldn't be a "small" group at all!

No, we wouldn't; but it would be difficult to be ready for that.

=====

BSA Loses:

1. Here, the problem is that (technically speaking) atheists and agnostics aren't legally addressed; although for the purposes of New Jersey, the BSA probably couldn't keep us out.

2. The strategy here should be to convince the BSA to appoint some gays and atheists to a national council to eliminate discrimination (or something like that). For what its worth, Jeff Lowder is an Eagle Scout and would

be an excellent atheist member of any such body.

That, in my opinion, should be a condition of any unfavorable settlement in this case.

 

3. We should investigate how the national board positions are actually filled, and if the BSA loses, consider court action to remove those members who have advocated this "illegal policy" to discriminate. The problem with this course of action is obtaining the proper legal "standing" to sue..... But the BSA is subject to Congressional oversight, and we should be able to get somebody like Barney Frank to at least get some hearings going.

4. Everyone with an atheist boy could file suit and innundate the BSA with lawsuits in all states. They've been able to keep us down so far, but if they lose this case, it'll be "Katie bar the door" on litigation, which must, in turn, motivate the necessary policy changes. (I still don't understand how the Girl Scouts managed to avoid this sort of thing. They have never had this sort of problem so far as I am aware.....)

Girl Scouts has never denied membership on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. Sure, they say God or whatever, but they don't mind if you don't say it. (A bit like the YMCA camp I went to as a kid.) They were very clear about that when the whole Boy Scouts thing happened, that they did not deny membership based on these things.

 

=====

Either way, we should have a strategy figured out and ready to go whenever the Supreme Court announces its result.

Absolutely.

From: Roy B. Torkington

Date: Thu Apr 27, 2000 11:03am

I was an Eagle Scout and a Senior Patrol Leader.

I would support and lend my name to any action against the current discriminatory BSA organization. Maybe we should try to form a committee of former Eagle Scouts to work on this. How many of us are there?


When I became an Eagle Scout in 1953 at the age of thirteen, I was already an atheist. One member of the troop board of review (basically the adult troop committee) questioned my suitability to become an Eagle because of my lack of church attendance. The theme of the questioning was how could I live up to the part of the Scout Law that said, "A Scout is reverent," without going to church. I don't remember what I said, but I vaguely remember being
paralyzed with fear and mumbling something inarticulate. Now I find it interesting that those jerks equated with reverence with going to church. By that standard, the Christian ascetic, mortifying the flesh in the desert or
on top of a pillar, is irreverent.

No one asked if I believed in God, because in those days everyone was assumed to be a believer. Naturally, I didn't volunteer the information. I did have an answer ready if they found out and asked me how an atheist could live up to the Scout Oath, "I promise ... to do my duty to God and my country."  I would have answered, "There being no gods, I have no duty to them."

The Scoutmaster was enraged. He said that the committeeman who initiated the line of questioning was angry that I had qualified for Eagle, while his son, who was a year older had not. My father later said to me, "Well, you go to church when you're at Boy Scout camp in the summer." Typical of my father to look for an unconfrontational way around a problem. He, although a believer, was not a regular church-goer. The only religious service I remember seeing him at was his funeral. My mother took the hard line with me. "You start going to church." I put up a hard fight against it -- as hard as I could without telling her I was an atheist. Finally, I yielded and went to church the next Sunday. That was the last time. She realized that she would have to repeat the battle every week to keep me going. I've always been the only person in the family that can match my mother for stubbornness, and she's always known it.

The issue faded away. I think the Scoutmaster talked to the committeemen and most of them weren't interested in giving me a hard time. I guess the vocal one found himself outvoted. I don't really know what happened. In 1953,
there was a lot of behind-the-scenes adult stuff that thirteen-year-olds were not privy to.

Some interesting speculation on that Scoutmaster: One of my oldest friends, the guy who became an Eagle at the same time I did, later became a professional Scouter, i.e., an employee of the BSA. He is bitterly opposed to the current criticism of the Scouts. (He has told me stories of Scout leaders found to be homosexuals who were dismissed back in the 1960's.)

A couple of years ago he speculated that our Scoutmaster may have had a sexual interest in young boys. The guy always had a "favorite," who rode with him and sometimes tented with him. We noted that the favorite was not
always one of the leaders. (Ex-Scouts will acknowledge the importance of "leadership" in Scouting.) One favorite that I remember had absolutely no leadership ability.  My friend and I realized that the favorites were always
well-equipped in the genital department. (There was a lot of nudity at camp when showering, changing clothes, etc. so this sort of thing was easy to notice.) This possibility had never occurred to us back in the early 50's,
and now it is just the speculation of a couple of middle-aged guys reminiscing about events almost a half-century in the past. 

Regards,  Roy

From: Harvey Tippit

Thu Apr 27, 2000 3:03pm

This is a most interesting first hand account of young fellows being exposed to tales of those queer homosexuals. I suspect that the suspicion that a Scoutmaster was thought to be gay because he had particular favorite Boy
Scout, and the suspicion that the boys with large genitals were favored by gay leaders are both somewhat apocryphal or overblown (oops!) but just the kind of accusations that homophobes and innocent young men would believe, if
they had never known any gays well--and known that they were gays. Do you think you and your friend could also have been mistaken in some of those suspicions?
Harvey

From: Roy B. Torkington

Date: Thu Apr 27, 2000 4:13pm

As Harvey implied, it was clearly idle, gossipy speculation many years after the fact. Also, the Scoutmaster engaged in some physical contact like whisker rubs and what I believe was called "the charleyhorse," which consisted of a tight hand clasp on the upper thigh. All of these played into our speculation. There was other "evidence," but I don't remember it. My friend has an incredibly detailed memory of events from our childhood and youth. He will casually mention details about persons or events that had long since slipped into the back drawers of my memory.

Incidentally, all of this notwithstanding, my friend was close to that Scoutmaster right up until his death and was, I believe, a pall-bearer at his funeral.

Whichever way the Scoutmaster leaned sexually, he certainly ran a good Troop and left many of us with happy memories of Scouting. I know he stuck up for me in the lack of church-going incident. However, he was not too good in the truth-telling department. In 1961 I was arrested for failing to take shelter during a civil defense drill that I and some others had been demonstrating against. Note that getting out of the park and standing in the doorway of
shop next to the plate glass windows would have constituted "taking shelter."

Years later the Scoutmaster told my friend that, after this event had made the local papers, he had gone with the Sheriff's deputy to my door to demand and obtain the return of my Eagle Scout badge. The interesting thing about
that tall tale is the grain of truth in it. If she had said he had been with a policeman, it would obviously have been a lie because I lived just beyond the city limits, so using the Sheriff was jurisdictionally appropriate.

Now comes the story of a remarkable coincidence that the New Agers would say is a psychic experience. We were members of the Order of the Arrow (the ex-Scouts know what it is, and the rest of you don't care). The Scoutmaster had a Vigil Honor Order of the Arrow sash done entirely in beadwork. After his death my friend went to the Scoutmaster's sister, his housemate and only relative, and asked if he could have a piece of Boy Scout memorabilia as a memento. She steered him to a bunch of stuff -- patches, scarves, etc. Of course, what my friend was looking for was that beaded sash. He asked about it and the sister said, "Oh, he was buried wearing that sash." ... Temporary end of story, which I first heard many years ago.

Story resumes a couple of years ago when my friend is driving past an auction house and stops and goes in. Now this is strictly impulse. He swears that this was the first time in his life that he had ever been to an auction. He came in, glanced at the stuff on display, saw an small, cheap, old chest of drawers. He opened one of the drawers and found it filled with Boy Scout memorabilia, including our troop flag, pictures of our Scoutmaster, and -- you guessed it -- the beaded sash.

Last time I visited, we spent a lot of time going through that stuff. One interesting set of photos appeared to have been taken a few years before our era. They all showed the same guy in Scout uniform. The guy was -- you
guessed it -- John Holmes. (Just kidding.)

Among the memorabilia were some newspaper clippings. One of them, I think from the late 60's or early 70's, contained an interview in which he commented on ex-Scouts participating in political protests. He said something to the effect that, even if you disagree with them, they are standing up for what they believe is right, which is appropriate behavior for Boy Scouts.

I accepted that interview as a belated apology for the tall tale about the Sheriff confiscating my Eagle badge.

Regards, Roy

Forwarded by SB

There is quite a bit of difference here. We aren't dealing with ordinary trademark law. We are dealing with the explicit language of Title 36, United States Code, section 30905 (1999), which reads: "Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights." That last sentence has to be read in context with the fact that this law first became effective on June 15, 1916, so any "vested rights" would necessarily need to trace back to before that date. Also note the explicit use of the word "words" in the above. That extends to far more than mere trademarks! Its a very powerful grant of privilege!

=====

But its nearly matched with respect to the Girl Scouts in Section 80305:

"Sec. 80305. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

"The corporation has the exclusive right to use all emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts, including the badge of the Girl Scouts, Incorporated, referred to in the Act of August 12, 1937 (ch. 590, 50 Stat. 623), and to authorize their use, during the life of the corporation, in connection with the manufacture, advertisement, and sale of equipment and merchandise. This section does not affect any vested rights."

Here, of course, the "vested rights" are those previously granted to the Boy Scouts. The only thing the Girl Scouts can't do is call themselves the "Boy Scouts" or use any of the "words" previously adopted by those same "Boy Scouts."

=====

But the Kinkos lawsuit isn't at all determinative about the use of the word "scout" since that word (and any others generally used by the Boy Scouts, such as "troop," "pack," "den," and so forth) are EXCLUSIVELY reserved to the Boy Scouts, except to the extent that the rights to some other use might have been vested as of June 15, 1916 or subsequently to the extent that such words were only subsequently adopted by said Boy Scouts.

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

Unfortunately, except in a few of the larger cities, we don't have "critical mass" to make something like this feasible. We need to attract the other "disaffected" and gain "critical mass" through some other method...... I state this having just faced up to the fact that there is no preschool within 50 miles of my house that won't inculcate religious beliefs into my 4-year-old son, and there is only one other freethinker within driving distance with an equivalently-aged child who is at all interested in some sort of "freethought play group."

Yes, there are a lot of humanists here in Iowa; mostly over 50. Young humanist families, however, seem to be really hard to find. And I'd guess that my situation is typical of at least 90% of the counties within the United States. So, if we can't involve the Methodists and the other "mainstream" religious who are against the BSA's discriminatory policies, then I would predict we are doomed to fail. ===========================================================================

Unfortunately, Paul Kurtz isn't likely to part with any part of his stash, and most of the other freethought groups are "dirt poor," so this is an idea that's likely to be "stillborn." ============================================================================

Yes; I actually think that the worst thing which could happen for the BSA is that they win in the Supreme Court. It would tell everybody who disagrees with the result to look elsewhere for another youth organization; which just might be what OUR group would need to get going really good...... ============================================================================

True. Absolutely true. But if we don't begin to "get our act together" we won't ever get near the finish line (wherever that turns out to be).

And if anything, at least we do have somewhat of a model: Camp Quest. ============================================================================

I agree.

And in the event that the BSA wins, we need to seek out all of the dissidents (some of whom have taken out web sites, and are thus easy to locate) and entice them into our alternative organization. ============================================================================

Lets brainstorm on that thought for a bit.....

Even when I was young (early 1960s), the Boy Scouts had formed a co-ed group called the Explorers. I dropped out of Boy Scouts in my early teens, but I signed up again to be an Explorer Scout (technically, the Explorers were a totally separate group; there was no sense of "promotion" from Boy Scouts into Explorers).

So, it surely seems that the Girl Scouts would have the right to also form some sort of co-ed group (and if you can do it for teens, as the Boy Scouts did, you can't really argue about mixing the sexes "at the wrong age").

BRILLIANT IDEA: Approach the Girl Scouts to charter a "mixed sex" group; create an entire program for said group that is affiliated with the GIRL SCOUTS (who have rejected the same bigotry the Boy Scouts have embraced). That gives our group "instant credibility" (with a national leadership to "oversee" what we do), the right to use the word "scout," all of the same access to schools, governments, (and yes, religious groups too), etc. that the Girl Scouts themselves enjoy; AND the right to conduct a totally secular program within the context of a group that has rejected bigotry.

PROGRAM MODEL: Mix together the best ideas from the Camp Quest concept and the Explorer Scouts concept, giving everything some new set of labels which the Girl Scouts adopt into their program a-la the Explorers for the Boy Scouts.

=====

I think something along these lines is worth a shot...... ===========================================================================

From: FICherry@a...

In the past I talked about a West Coast Camp Quest with Edwin Kagin, Camp
Quest inspirer and director. He was enthusiastic about this idea, and would
be happy to work on this. If there is enough interest from Californians--from
volunteers and parents and children---to make this seem a realistic prospect
then I would recommend that Center for Inquiry West bring Edwin out for a
planning meeting.

All the best

Matt
Matt Cherry
Executive Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Executive Editor, Free Inquiry
tel. 1 716 636 7571 x215
fax: 1 716 636 1733

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Answers

How About Pioneers?

From: Boycott Boy Scouts by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Hi. I joined an eGroup Forum for Atheists United today and Monica let me know about this one. I have just finished reading the history of postings of this group. I've been involved in some debates about the Boy Scout case on the TimeBomb2000 Forum. It's the successor group to the one that was so popular here on LUSENET. My essays are collected at my web page linked above.

I agree that an inclusive scouting organization could take the wind out of the sails of the BSA. Perhaps the announcement of the formation of the group could be timed to come just a few days after the announcement of the Supreme Court decision, no matter what way they decide. In either case, the religious grievance will be still an issue. It could be a kind of one-two punch if BSA were forced to change and also to compete.

The inclusive scouting group could be marketed as an organization in which boys: learn to stand up for themselves and what they think is right, practice thinking for themselves, co-operate with others who are different from themselves, empower themselves through survival skill mastery, help their communities through regular volunteer service, assist the less fortunate, inform themselves about current events, work to influence the outcome in public debates, and prepare to deal with all sorts of potential emergencies.

I like the idea of using the name Scouting for All Boys [SAB]. I feel certain that BSA would sue right away. This could be a good thing in that it would provide the excuse needed to go after the whole name along with the charter. BSA is practicing religious discrimination, whether it is forced to admit gays or not. This could be the big win. It annoys me to no end when people say to "go start your own club." To me, this should be our club. If someone wants their son to not be exposed to mine, when mine is someplace that he has every right to be, then they need to "go start their own club."

I'm at a loss for what to call the club if we can't use the words "scout" or "scouting." All of the words I've come up with are lacking in some big way, mainly being too easily lampooned by anti-gay detractors. The best word I've come up with so far is Pioneer/Pioneering. This word carries many positive connotations: patriotic, strong, courageous, inventive, adaptive, leading, independent, self sufficient, tradition breaking, future oriented. It also does not carry some of the baggage of the word "scout" as being something military and also low rank.

The "for All" part is not necessary in case of a whole new name. So, Boy Pioneers, Boy Pioneers USA, Boy Pioneers International (eventually), Boy Pioneering. If we went the route of joining forces with the Girl Scouts, the Boy groups could be called Pioneer Scouts. I like it. The group could still do battle against the Boy Scouts charter, even from under the Girl Scouts umbrella.

We shouldn't copy anything else that BSA has that is identified with scouting. Our uniforms, if we have them could be not paramilitary looking, yet still rugged and utilitarian, something like what "real" hikers wear.

One important consideration is that the organization would have to be extra careful about issues of child sexual endangerment. This is not to say that an inclusive group would be any more prone to such incidents, but only that any such problems that did occur might tend to be blown out of proportion.

Also, we might have to deal with religious parents' fears of "atheist proselytizing." Those who would think nothing of "saving" an atheist child might be outraged at the idea that anyone might, even inadvertently, cause their own child to question his faith. There would have to be some firm guidelines as to how leaders would deal with attempts to proselytize.

Has anybody got a Girl Scout connection? If not, I'd be willing to contact them. I was a Senior Scout in the sixties, and also volunteered in the mid-eighties.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Oh, no... I just remembered... Pioneers is what Cuba calls their youth movement.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000