Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[fgoodwin]

Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

 

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=9706

http://tinyurl.com/huq2b

 

May 25, 2006

 

By Eba Hamid

 

(AXcess News) Washington - David Knapp was 67 years old in 1993 when three visitors to his Guilford, Conn., home informed him that he was being kicked out of his leadership role at Boy Scouts of America.

 

He had joined in 1938 and was serving as a volunteer district commissioner when the three scouting officials knocked on his door.

 

So why now?

 

Someone had written a letter to the Boy Scouts' leadership informing them that Knapp, an Eagle Scout, was gay. He suspects it was a relative upset over his divorce several years earlier.

 

"I was in the closet," Knapp said, "deep in the closet."

 

Now, Knapp is Connecticut state chairman for Scouting for All, a nonprofit organization that aims to have the Boy Scouts rescind their policies against both gay members, like Knapp, and atheist youth and adults.

 

Members of Scouting for All staged an eight-hour protest Wednesday outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel as some of the 3,000 people attending the Boy Scouts' national annual meeting began to trickle in.

 

"We're a peaceful group, but we're not going to remain silent," said Scouting for All President Scott Cozza. "The Boy Scouts of America will never be the same. They're going to have to deal with this issue.

 

According to Scouting for All's Web site, more than 40 percent of its members are Eagle Scouts. More than 100 of them have returned their Eagle Scout awards either to the Boy Scouts or Scouting for All, which is holding them in trust until the BSA's policies change, Cozza said.

 

"I still love scouting," Knapp said. "I still believe it's the best youth program in the world. We need it now more than ever before."

 

The national spokesman for Boy Scouts of America said Scouting for All is welcome to protest as long as the group allows the service organization to do as it wishes.

 

"The Boy Scouts accepts their rights of free speech," Gregg Shields said. "We would ask our fellow Americans to respect our right to define our membership."

 

That right allows the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, said Shields, adding that the Boy Scouts oath states: "I will do my best to do my duty to God."

 

"If you want to be a Boy Scout, you must believe in God," Shields said.

 

"Similarly, we don't admit to our membership overtly homosexual peoples in leadership positions," he said.

 

A 2000 Supreme Court ruling upheld the Boy Scouts' right to set its membership rules. The 5-4 decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court decision requiring the Scouts to readmit a gay scoutmaster.

 

In 2002, the Boy Scouts adopted a resolution reinforcing the group's stance against admitting gays and atheists.

 

Members of Scouting for All have protested the Boy Scouts' annual meeting since the late 1990s, Cozza said.

 

Also speaking at this year's rally were members of Equality Maryland; Virginia Partisans, a gay and lesbian Democratic club; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the Unitarian Church of Montclair, N.J.; and the Secular Coalition of America.

 

The group was to hold a candlelight vigil and walk from Dupont Circle to the hotel late Wednesday in memory of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and atheist youth who have committed suicide.

 

The protest was to continue Thursday. Boy Scouts of America's conference concludes Friday.

[Bobanon]

Perhaps it is time for the BSA to move into the 21st Century. Either that over die out over the next 20 to 30 years. Allowing gays isn't going to throw the door open to rampant homosexuality. Pedophiles are not generally homosexual, and are generally know to their victims. Look at the catholic church for instance.

 

Also too is the current religious intolerance. The realm of religion is the responsibility of the parents not the BSA and there should not be a religious obligation as a clause to membership. Many of the Founding Fathers were not christians, and this country was not begun as a christian nation no matter what those in the religious reich claim. The Treaty Of Tripoli states this emphatically.

 

Like I said the BSA needs to catch up with the times and die out. I hate to see it die for it has the potential of becoming a great youth organization again. It just needs to jettison the poisoning it has suffered since the early 80's of the mormon church's influence.

[evmori]

Thanks for posting Bobanon. However, being morally straight, I disagree 100% with your position.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

Ed, that sounds perilously close to saying Bobanon is not morally straight. I'm sure that's not what you intended to imply.

[NJCubScouter]

Bobanon says:

 

Like I said the BSA needs to catch up with the times and die out.

 

I hope you meant "or," not "and."

 

 

[Bobanon]

NJCubScouter my error. Yes I meant change with the times OR die out. My bad.

 

Evnori, I know many who claim to be followers of the Christian religion and are anything but morally straight. Being the member of a Christian denomination no more makes one moral, or morally straight than bald is a hair color.

 

Ghandi was once asked that even though he was educated in England why he wasn't a Christian, to which Ghandi replied, "show me a Christian and I will become one."

 

 

[evmori]

Bobanon,

 

I'm not one of those Christians.

 

Trevorum,

 

Take it any way you want. Homosexuals, in my opinion, are not morally straight.

 

Thanks to those who fought so we could be free.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

OK, Ed. Maybe you did mean to be insulting after all.

[evmori]

Maybe the BSA should protest Scouting for All for making a mockery of them! That would be interesting!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

There are several elements of this story that please me. Both BSA and Scouting for All are choosing to defend their positions in the "marketplace of ideas" rather than going to court. Both are exercising constitutional rights, and are trying to use persuasion to convince others that they are right. After all, if you want to change somebody's mind about something, it's probably not effective to begin by calling them names and saying that they are evil. Notice how Knapp said he still loves scouting? That's smart.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, what's so bad about going to court? If my rights as an atheist are at stake, I know I have a much better chance in a real court of law than in the court of public opinion. My rights aren't subject to a popular vote.

[Hunt]

Do you think bringing--and losing--the Dale case helped the cause of those who would like to persuade BSA to change its membership policies? Do you think forcing BSA out of public schools makes it more or less likely that BSA will change its policy on the religious requirement anytime soon? If your goal is to persuade BSA that your position is ethically superior, these lawsuits are counterproductive. Of course, if your goal is simply to protect your rights and not persuade anybody of anything, I guess they make sense. I guess a simpler way of putting this is that people involved in scouting are more likely to be persuade by a person who says he loves scouting than a person who makes it clear that he hates it.

[GernBlansten]

Hunt,

You make a very compelling argument against the litigation with BSA. These lawsuits just make the hardcore supporters dig in their heels and most of the moderate supporters as well. Tough to change hearts and minds at the end of a legal sword. Those that love the BSA are tempered to the cause, those against the BSA wouldn't join even if they won their suits.

 

Perhaps a more effect method would be just to publicize the instances of BSA policies of discrimination and hypocrisy and let society decide.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

Do you think bringing--and losing--the Dale case helped the cause of those who would like to persuade BSA to change its membership policies?

 

That was actually up to one person - James Dale. Even if everyone else in the US thought it was a bad idea, or thought it was a bad time, absolutely nobody had any kind of authority to prevent him from pressing a lawsuit.

 

Do you think forcing BSA out of public schools makes it more or less likely that BSA will change its policy on the religious requirement anytime soon?

 

I actually don't care; what I care about is stopping public schools from unlawfully violating the civil liberties of their students who happen to be atheists, and that's exactly what thousands of public schools were doing. That isn't even subject to debate - public schools CANNOT discriminate against atheists by owning & operating a private club that excludes atheists.

 

If your goal is to persuade BSA that your position is ethically superior, these lawsuits are counterproductive.

 

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

 

Of course, if your goal is simply to protect your rights and not persuade anybody of anything, I guess they make sense.

 

I'm certainly not about to let the government violate my rights in order to seem more "persuasive" - you seem to think doormats are epitome of persuasion.

 

I guess a simpler way of putting this is that people involved in scouting are more likely to be persuade by a person who says he loves scouting than a person who makes it clear that he hates it.

 

Yeah, that David Rice and Scott & Steven Cozza really built up a lot of hate by being in Scouting for decades, right?

[evmori]

Ya know what I love (other than God, my wife & kids)? I love it when groups want "equal" rights by stomping all over everyone else's rights. Atheists want the BSA out of public schools because they aren't allowed to be members. And excluding atheists from membership is legal according to SCOTUS.

 

The BSA isn't a religious organization. They are a youth group. And chartering a BSA unit in no way establishes a religion or violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10