Statement of Boy Scouts of America: Court Rules Boy Scout Jamboree to Go Forward

[OldGreyEagle]

The Crew I serve has a tradition of working a week a summer for Habitat for Humanity. Now, here is a group that is unabashedly Christian, they present each new owner with a Bible and yet they fly under the religious discrimination radar. Taken from their website is the following:

 

"Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter a matter of conscience and action. Habitat is founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable place to live in dignity and safety.

Habitat has an open-door policy: All who desire to be a part of this work are welcome, regardless of religious preference or background. Habitat for Humanity has always had a policy of building with people in need regardless of race or religion, and we welcome volunteers and supporters from all backgrounds."

 

Could the BSA make the same statement, exchanging Christian for some other word I can't think of right now that ecompasses all religions, and be ok? Just a thought

 

[SSScout]

What Hunt said and what OGE said...

 

The biggest problem is always when one says their club/org/association is "so and so" and no others need apply. What one truly wants is a club/org/association with a defined purpose and character that will allow ALL to join in with the understanding that 'here's the way we is' and if they will allow for the way things is, welcome and be seated. But if the joiner is eager to change the definition and character, then they should be prepared to be unappreciated. Build houses for the disadvantaged? Great. Say a prayer over the new owner? That's what we are.

 

Join Scouts and accept a 'Scout's Own' on sunday morning of the campout. That's the way we are. Join a Muslim CPack, expect a certain behavior. Join a Troop sponsored by an American Legion Post, expect flag waving. Etc. Usw.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And what should have people expected when their kids joined a cub scout pack sponsored by their public school? Kick out atheists? At least two regular posters here who were in charge of school-sponsored packs have said they'd do exactly that.

[evmori]

And what should have people expected when their kids joined a cub scout pack sponsored by their public school? Kick out atheists? At least two regular posters here who were in charge of school-sponsored packs have said they'd do exactly that.

 

No one getting kicked out! If an atheist joined a Pack or Troop their membership would never be valid since they lied when they signed their application. Sorta like when one lies on a job application. You lose your job.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Is this like how school-sponsored pack was never valid, since a public school can't sign a valid charter argreement to exclude atheists?

[Gonzo1]

Hunt,

The tallness example is perfect! It provides a set of membership guidelines and if the applicant doesn't qualify, the applicant can't join, period, exclamation mark! BSA is completely non-sectarian. BSA doesn't really care what church or other place of worship you attend or that it's members attend a place of worship at all. Members must however believe in God in order to become members, and presumably remain as members.

 

I get it, I know BSA doesn't charter units to schools and that the chartered partner "owns" the unit, again, I get it.

 

Scoutldr,

Anyone is welcome in BSA, I might even say that Merlyn would be welcome if and only if Merlyn believes in God. Merlyn, you can believe in any god or "Higher Power" you wish. The report card should be enough to get minorities interested in math and engineering. Affirmative action is not necessary in my opinion. I am a minority and I don't need Uncle Sam (or Jesse Jackson's Mono-chrome Coalition or LULAC) to help me out. Role models, information, etc. is important for everyone, not some some. Yes, I read the disclaimer above.

 

If gay atheists show up and sign the application, take the Oath and Law, then they are frauds (as things are today)

 

The idea of black troops and white is ridiculous. But, how many white kids would "feel welcome" in da 'hood and joining the local troop? Because there isn't forced bussing for scout troops, the troop in the hood is probably a "black" troop.

 

Merlyn,

It seems like it's more similar to "fraudulent enlistment" in the military. If a soldier completes the application process and forms and swears UNDER PENALTY that the information provided was correct, but knowingly falsified information about prior drug use, the applicant will either be denied entry into the military or be tossed out once discovered.

 

I'm aware that BSA made a recent change to charter units to places other than schools and government facilities. That's a nice way to expose Explorers / Venturers to police and fire departments, oops, did I say that out loud?

 

No one in public schools is going to try to convert anyone to Christianity. Schools doen't have the time anyway. Trying to teach RRR and all the PC stuff (what ever happened to Dick and Jane?).

I dare say that no one in a troop is going to cram Christianity down your throat either.

 

Merlyn, I've noticed you don't really post many things except as related to atheism, why?

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Merlyn, As I read SSScout, I thought he was agreeing with you, that the BSA would be better off letting everyone join, as long as they knew what they were getting.

 

For the rest of the forum, I agree with Hunt...I don't see any point in arguing with Merlyn on a point that he's right about. Schools can't sponsor BSA units, since BSA is a self-professed religious organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. The BSA even agrees with this point. I think the horse is dead. No need to keep beating it.

 

My question on SSScout's hypothetical open membership policy: would that be sufficient? Anyone could be a member, but it's still a religious organization. Would that meet the non-discrimination requirements of govenment organizations? How would advancement work? That is, how would it work especially in Cubs where you have to explicitly complete a religious requirement, or alternatively, in Boy Scouts, if your leader asks you about duty to God and you deny you have one. Troops could go with a don't ask, don't tell policy, I guess.

 

Oak Tree

[evmori]

The BSA is a private youth group that has religious requirements for membership.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh]

For those quick to label atheists in the Boy Scouts as liars and frauds, here is some food for thought.

 

My son joined a pack as a Tiger at 7 years old. He qualified for all the membership requirements at that time. But at 7, he has not decided on his religious path. At some later time, he may decide to follow no religious past and be an atheist. For all I know, he may discover at some later date that he is gay. He has not lied, nor committed fraud, but if either of those things came to pass, he could be kicked out of the BSA. If his unit was chartered by a public school, they would be the ones responsible for enforcing that.

 

I gotta tell you, I can't say I'd be too thrilled with the public school that he has to attend every day kicking him out of their sponsored unit for his religious choice or his sexual orientation.

 

And you can say that the BSA is not a religious organization until you are blue in the face, but according to the Supreme Court they are. Calling a duck a goose doesn't make it so just because you repeat it more often.

 

But this dilemma is, in essence, what bothers me most about the BSA's discriminatory membership policies regarding gays and atheists. Both of those are things that a boy may not know/have decided on when he joins the BSA as a Cub. He can spend years as part of a pack and even later a troop, before he suddenly no longer meets the membership requirements he DID meet when he joined. Yet now, he is suddenly unacceptable to the BSA. That bothers me more than excluding boys in the first place. But if you say that the boy who later in life discovers his homosexuality or decides on atheism can stay, then it seems hypocritical in the extreme to exclude a boy who came to the BSA already possessing that knowledge.

 

OakTree, you bring up a good point about Cub advancement. My thought was that you could still have a requirement to *learn* about a religion, without actually having to profess or believe it. In fact, I think learning about the stories and beliefs of religions is an important part of our cultural understanding, and I would think would be an acceptable alternative to atheists.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Oaktree, there would still be problems with a hypothetical BSA stance that allowed everyone to join but monotheism is the expected norm, as far as government sponsorship is concerned.

 

Gonzo1, I mostly comment on atheist issues because I'm an atheist, and also because the BSA's religious discrimination usually raises the most difficult legal questions.

[Hunt]

"The BSA is a private youth group that has religious requirements for membership."

 

That's right, Ed, and that's why a public school can't sponsor a BSA unit.

 

"My question on SSScout's hypothetical open membership policy: would that be sufficient? Anyone could be a member, but it's still a religious organization. Would that meet the non-discrimination requirements of govenment organizations?"

 

Again, you have to be clear what you're talking about. If you're talking about actually having the government organization charter and own the unit, I think the answer would still be no, because it would be seen as promoting the religious views of the organization, in violation of the Establishment Clause. But, there would be a counterargument, which I suppose might be persuasive to the current Supreme Court. Here it is: As long as the school allows other groups with religious or anti-religious views to obtain the same level of school access and use of facilities, it might decide that the school can even charter or sponsor such groups. In other words, it might find that the technical nature of the relationship is not what is important, but rather the degree to which the "forum" is open to all groups. Since many charter organizations don't provide any money or services to units other than a place to meet, this argument could work. It simply wouldn't work, though, for an organization that actually discriminates on religious grounds for membership, because the ownership of the unit would put the school in the position of discriminating.

[packsaddle]

Dan, Unless my memory has failed me, I think the court's declaration that BSA was a religious organization was in agreement with BSA's own claim that it was a religious organization. I don't see how anyone can doubt, considering BSA's and the court's declarations, that BSA is anything BUT a religious organization.

 

I believe that your scenario is very interesting and it points to the heart of the problem. In the case of a boy who decides, after he has joined, that his beliefs have changed, his subsequent ejection from membership really amounts to a reaction to his thoughts and not to any action on his part whatsoever. In this sense, BSA has closed membership to persons who do not share certain IDEAS. Bring on the thought police!

This aspect has several weaknesses, all of which depend on how well the organization can truly know what is in someone's mind. I suggest that an organization can never truly know what is in a person's mind. They are totally dependent on what someone may or may not SAY is in their mind and that can change at any time. The criterion fails if 1) the person has mistated or miscommunicated their thoughts, or 2) the person remains undecided and unable to clearly communicate their thoughts, or 3) the person lies, or 4) the person merely says nothing, or 5) BSA misinterprets a person's clearly-stated thoughts.

The criterion works only if all involved THINK everyone else has similar thoughts (seems unlikely to me, anyone else?)...what a pleasant illusion. To me such criteria are, for want of better descriptors, illogical, thoughtless, and stupid.

 

I remember a time when, as a child, I heard my Presbyterian church claim to welcome ANYONE who wanted to attend. I suppose 'anyone' would then be subject to persuasion to Presbyterian beliefs. Has this changed? Do churches now kick people out if they decide they don't believe in some aspect of doctrine? H'mm maybe so, seems like I remember a priest telling a woman she would be excommunicated if she used birth control, or something like that. But what if she just 'wanted' to use birth control? I guess that's what 'confession' was for.

Anyway, somewhere along the line something seems to have changed. Despite claims to the contrary, we really DON'T embrace diversity, do we? At least when it comes to ideas.

[Eagledad]

>>Despite claims to the contrary, we really DON'T embrace diversity, do we?

[evmori]

If the BSA is a religious organization, what religion is it?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

I was using the word, 'we', in a sense that is broader than just BSA as an organization. I question whether 'we' Americans as a nation really embrace diversity when it comes to diversity of ideas. We certainly did at times during our history but this seems to be diminished in recent times. Perhaps I am just seeing it in the wrong way but if I am, please feel free to show me the right way.

 

Personally, I don't care as much about ethnicity, social status, or other superficial characteristics that we associate with diversity as I do about the ideas people have. It would be really interesting if a person looked and lived like a warthog but I would be more interested in their ideas (especially coming from a warthog ).

 

But clearly, certain ideas are not allowed, as you say, in certain organizations, BSA among them. I agree with you but I differ in that I think that 'thought control' or whatever you call it, is wrong. Being punished or excluded for an idea is wrong coming from the Communist Part or the Taliban and it is also wrong from any other authority. Perhaps on that we'll just have to disagree.