Street Wrong To Evict Boy Scouts

[Hunt]

"Hunt, I think a lawsuit could easily succeed against the BSA, as they clearly knew or should have known that they were inducing a public school into practicing religious discrimination. In Minnesota, that's a crime."

 

Sorry, the likelihood of a civil lawsuit succeeding against BSA is virtually nil, and the likelihood that a prosecutor would choose to prosecute BSA for such a "crime" is even more remote. At most, again, BSA and the school would have to change the chartering organization from the school to somebody else. There would be no fines, no attorney's fees for the plaintiffs, nothing. BSA may have agreed to change school COs in order to avoid lawsuits, but it was potential lawsuits against the schools that were involved. Except for the minor inconvenience of changing the charter, few people in scouting really care whether the sponsor is the school itself or the PTA or some other private organization--because it just doesn't matter to the real-world operation of the unit. The only people who care are those who are concerned about the technical legal purity of the situation--and because you're technically in the right, BSA is humoring you. Your only true opposition is people who, for ideological reasons, think that the schools should be allowed to promote religious values. I know it must be annoying to win your great victory and to find that most of the losers aren't too upset about it, and that nothing really changed as a result, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Trevorum]

As with many arguments, one of the problems here is semantics. These days, popular useage has narrowed the word "discrimination" to mean bad behavior. It is actually broader than that and means simply to choose between options. We all discriminate all the time. Between ripe bananas and green ones, Between chick flicks and action movies. Between blue politicians and red ones.

 

What is the bad behavior is unjust discrimination that is unwarranted or is hurtful to people. Like blacks sit in back, whites in front. Men can vote, women can't.

 

The semantics obscure the fact that some people feel it is OK to tell a 8 year old that he can't be a cub scout because his parents do not believe in supernatural beings or magic. Or, that it's OK to tell a 15 year old who has been in Scouting since he was 8 that he is not clean or moral because he has come to realize that he is gay.

[Hunt]

"The semantics obscure the fact that some people feel it is OK to tell a 8 year old that he can't be a cub scout because his parents do not believe in supernatural beings or magic."

 

You are right; semantics are important. For example, the statement above seems quite different if it is worded as follows:

"Some people feel it is reasonable and not unjust discrimination for a private organization to deny membership to those who do not share the religious beliefs of the organization." I would say that is a more neutral way of putting it than suggesting that "some people" are yokels who believe in "magic."

[Trevorum]

You're right, Hunt. It was poorly worded and I didn't mean to offend.

 

My point was from the perspective of the parents who see belief in the supernatural as equivalent to belief in magic. Good, solid, well-educated, moral folks who want their son to benefit from the terrific Scouting movement but are nonetheless told that their son doesn't measure up to BSA standards. Of course as you point out, from the perspective of inside the membership, they simply don't share the minimum necessary religious beliefs.

 

I think that's a shame. I think Scouting is a big enough tent to include all youth.

[evmori]

You're right, Hunt. It was poorly worded and I didn't mean to offend.

 

My point was from the perspective of the parents who see belief in the supernatural as equivalent to belief in magic. Good, solid, well-educated, moral folks who want their son to benefit from the terrific Scouting movement but are nonetheless told that their son doesn't measure up to BSA standards. Of course as you point out, from the perspective of inside the membership, they simply don't share the minimum necessary religious beliefs.

 

I think that's a shame. I think Scouting is a big enough tent to include all youth.

 

Actually, they don't meet the membership requirements. You might not like the membership requirements but they are there. Sorta like becoming an American citizen. Either you follow the rules or stay an illegal immigrant & reap none of the benefits a citizen has.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Or sort of like meeting the requirements to rent public property for $1/year. Either you follow the rules or you don't reap the benefits a nondiscriminatory organization gets.

[Trevorum]

Yes, Ed, I know. That's exactly my point.

 

I believe that BSA engages in unjust discrimination. It is perfectly legal and many people are OK with it, but it is not moral.

 

In our country's history, many immoral things used to be legal. Slowly, our society tends to correct our inherent biases. It takes a long time, but I have a great faith that Americans eventually do the right thing. It used to be legal to enslave other people on the basis of ancestry, but no more. It used to be legal to disenfranchise fully half of the adult population on the basis of a chromosome, but no more. It used to be legal to employ 10 year olds in coal mines, but no more. It used to be legal to imprison people because of their preferred consensual sex acts, but no more. It used to be legal to fire an employee merely because they became pregnant, but no more.

 

Yes, I know that morality is in the eye of the beholder. That's also my point. Slaveholders were, by and large, well-meaning people who fervently believed that their social role was divinely ordained and thus moral. Today, no-one defends slavery as moral.

 

I've said it before: BSA is on the wrong side of history with regards to it's unjust discrimination in membership standards. Sooner or later, BSA will either change or else it will become an anachronism. BSA has changed along with American society on the issues of race and gender. I have great faith that it will continue to evolve.

[Hunt]

Trevorum, I think the issue of whether a private group is practicing unjust discrimination is a very difficult one. If we were talking about the United Methodist Youth Fellowship that met only at Methodist churches, I doubt if anybody would say it was unjust to limit membership to Christians, or even just to Methodists. I think probably the same would be true if you extend it to something like the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which meets on lots of college campuses--while you might not have to belong to a particular denomination, it wouldn't be unreasonable for such a group to limit its membership to Christians. Or imagine that somebody started a group dedicated to "sharing the understanding of religious faith, open to all persons with faith in God, no matter what tradition." If that group excluded atheists, I don't think it would be unjust.

So is BSA different? I think the apparent difference is that religion does not appear to be all that central to Scouting as it is experienced by the typical Scout. This varies from unit to unit, of course, but BSA is decidedly non-sectarian, so what it has to say about religion is by definition quite general, and is not a large portion of what BSA has to say. To me there is no question that religion is a small part of BSA--the trouble is whether it is a small but crucial part, or a small and dispensable part. Your perception of that distinction will determine whether you think it is unjust to maintain the religious membership requirement or not.

[Trevorum]

Hunt, I completely agree with what you say. I have no problem at all with Awana or the Royal Rangers limiting membership to those with narrowly defined religious beliefs.

 

OTOH, while it has been forced in recent decades to more precisely define its own identity limits, I think BSA has traditionally been more populist. Only recently have litmus tests been a precondition for membership.

[DanKroh]

Hunt, here's my problem with your analogy.

 

What if Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which meets on my college campus, is the only place where I can learn orienteering, a skill I am highly interested in, and which has nothing to do with being a Christian (i.e. scout skills and activities do not inherently require religious belief)? What if participation in ICF is the only thing that will ensure I get a better GPA when I gradutate (i.e. Eagle scouts getting higher pay grade in the military)?

 

Is it still fair to limit participation to Christians only?

[Hunt]

"What if Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which meets on my college campus, is the only place where I can learn orienteering, a skill I am highly interested in, and which has nothing to do with being a Christian (i.e. scout skills and activities do not inherently require religious belief)? What if participation in ICF is the only thing that will ensure I get a better GPA when I gradutate (i.e. Eagle scouts getting higher pay grade in the military)?

 

Is it still fair to limit participation to Christians only?"

 

I have a few reactions to your questions. As to the orienteering example, yes, I think it's fair. If the ICF wants to teach orienteering to its members, how is that unfair to you? You can start your own orienteering group if you want to. The Veterans of Foreign Wars may have the nicest pool table in town, but I can't play there unless I'm a veteran of a foreign war--that's not unfair.

As to your second question, I think your beef is not with ICF, but with the school. I don't think the fact that the military likes Eagle Scoutsmakes it unfair for BSA to have membership limits--it is arguably unfair for the military to give special consideration.

But let me go back to the first example for a second, and imagine a scenario in which I would agree with you. Imagine that in a particular town Little League is disbanded, and a new Christian Youth Baseball League is started to take its place--and only Christian boys are allowed to join. I would consider this unfair, especially if it was done to get rid of the nonbelievers. But even there, would I consider it "unfair" if somebody started a Christian Youth Baseball League to compete with Little League for members? There are reasons I wouldn't like such an idea, but it's not really "unfair."

I would add that I think it's a mistake to think that BSA was more populist in the past and that the religion and sexual orientation "litmus tests" are new. What is new is a measurable number of people willing to self-identify as atheists or openly gay. It hasn't been all that long since a time when people would have been shocked by the very idea of atheist Boy Scouts or gay scout leaders.

 

[DanKroh]

Hunt says "The Veterans of Foreign Wars may have the nicest pool table in town, but I can't play there unless I'm a veteran of a foreign war--that's not unfair."

 

Except that the VFW doesn't just have the nicest pool table. They have the ONLY pool table. And no one in town is willing to sell pool tables to anyone else.

 

The BSA sues groups that try to start scouting organizations that look too much like the BSA.

 

"As to your second question, I think your beef is not with ICF, but with the school. I don't think the fact that the military likes Eagle Scoutsmakes it unfair for BSA to have membership limits--it is arguably unfair for the military to give special consideration."

 

And yet, when steps are taken to try to prevent the special consideration given to the BSA by schools and government agencies, you complain. Which way is it going to be?

 

Again, the problem with your analogy is that, except for the BSA, there is NO OTHER GAME IN TOWN (at least, in my town, or any of the surrounding towns that would be within reasonable traveling distance). To make your analogy accurate, the town would have to disband their Little League and not allow any other baseball leagues to form except the Christian one.

 

There is NOWHERE else for my son to do the same things that he does or get the same advantages as he gets in scouting. And there is not likely to be because the BSA has a government-granted monopoly on scouting. Luckily, for the moment, my pagan sons and I are considered good enough to be allowed to be in the BSA. But I step into the shoes of my atheist neighbors, and I understand their gripe.

 

"I would add that I think it's a mistake to think that BSA was more populist in the past and that the religion and sexual orientation "litmus tests" are new. What is new is a measurable number of people willing to self-identify as atheists or openly gay."

 

Yes, I agree that we live in a time when people feel more free to be honest about themselves (even if they don't feel completely safe still). And that's a bad thing?

 

Edited because a paragraph ended up in the wrong place.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[GernBlansten]

I just reread the initial post and this case is not about a religious organization getting preferential leasing, its about an organization that discriminates against homosexuals getting preferential leasing.

I think BSA has a pretty solid standing excluding atheists (the DRP) but has no footing excluding homosexuals. Because of this, BSA will continue to face these types of issues until it either disengages any kind of special considerations or drops the discrimination policy. Since I doubt the LDS church (which I beleive has a very strong voice in BSA) will support dropping the policy, BSA and its members shouldn't be surprised to face continued scrutiny.

[Trevorum]

Hunt makes a very good point: "What is new is a measurable number of people willing to self-identify as atheists or openly gay. It hasn't been all that long since a time when people would have been shocked by the very idea of atheist Boy Scouts or gay scout leaders"

 

I would only add that it hasn't been that long since people were shocked by atheists or homosexuals in general society.

 

But this supports my contention that American society is evolving (as all societies always do) and that BSA will need to adapt or stagnate or, worse, wither. There are already signs that BSA membership is stagnating / declining in many parts of the country. I don't believe this trend is completely (or even mostly) due to the above mentioned social issues. However, BSA has become (IMO) fairly conservative in recent decades. By using that word, I mean slow to change. There are some things that will never become outmoded, like Trustworthy, Loyal, etc... But BSA (again, IMO) should become more agile in reaching out to youth.

[evmori]

Except that the VFW doesn't just have the nicest pool table. They have the ONLY pool table. And no one in town is willing to sell pool tables to anyone else.

 

It doesn't matter if they have the only pool table. To play on their table you have to become a member and if your aren't a vet of a foreign war, you can't become a member.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10