Should judges be allowed to be adult scout leaders?

[AZMike]

From http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-s-judges-debate-proposed-ban-on-ties-to-Boy-5478844.php

[h=1]State's judges debate proposed ban on ties to Boy Scouts[/h] [h=5]Bob Egelko[/h] [h=5]Updated 6:08 am, Thursday, May 15, 2014[/h] A proposal before the California Supreme Court to require judges to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, because of the Scouts' rejection of gays and lesbians as troop leaders, has the support of the state's main judicial organization, but there's evidently some opposition in the ranks.

The justices plan to decide sometime this summer whether to add California to the 21 states whose judicial ethics codes have antidiscrimination provisions that forbid judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts. The court's eight-member ethics advisory committee, which includes six judges, unanimously submitted the proposal in February. It received a record 650 comments by last week's deadline.

Most of the comments came from lawyers and other members of the public, who opposed the plan by a substantial majority. The California Judges Association, whose members make up 79 percent of the state's 2,000 judges, endorsed the proposed ban - but about 30 individual judges submitted their own comments, and at least 25 voiced objections.

[h=3]'Political correctness'[/h] The Boy Scouts of America "has been a positive influence in the lives of millions of young men," said three San Diego County Superior Court judges, Peter Gallagher, Gary Kreep and Howard Shore.

"Forcing judges out of the Boy Scouts appears to me to be simply trying to force a liberal political correctness on judges," said Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Roland Candee.

Other objectors said the ban would interfere with their freedom of religion - since many Boy Scout troops are church-sponsored - and freedom of association. Rick Sims, a retired state appeals court justice from Sacramento, said the Scouts aren't discriminating against gay men, but simply responding cautiously to child molestation scandals in the 2.7 million-member youth organization.

[h=3]Viewpoints[/h] "In my view, the Boy Scouts act rationally by excluding people who are sexually attracted to males from being scout leaders," Sims said.

A contrasting view came from James Humes, a state appeals court justice in San Francisco and the first openly gay jurist on any California appellate court.

"The Boy Scouts' insistence on excluding openly gay men and lesbians from leadership positions panders to discredited stereotypes, encourages dishonesty, and sadly contradicts the Scouts' history and stated goals of teaching children citizenship, respect and honesty," Humes said.

California's judges haven't been polled on the issue, and a law professor said the posted comments probably don't reflect the prevailing views on the bench.

"When you're against something, you're more motivated to write," said David Levine, who teaches at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Although the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gays, he said, "we have strong antidiscrimination laws in California, and judges are sworn to uphold them."

All three San Francisco Superior Court judges who submitted comments - Angela Bradstreet, Kay Tsenin and Carol Yaggy - supported the proposed ban.

The Scouts historically banned gays as both members and leaders. They repealed the membership ban at a contentious national council meeting in May 2013, effective this year, but maintained the prohibition on gay and lesbian adult leaders.

That decision has led to multiple defections - some groups leaving the Scouts for new organizations that exclude gays, others opting for independent status with gay or lesbian leaders. It also prompted the California court's ethics committee to propose repealing a 1996 court rule that allows judges to belong to "nonprofit youth organizations" - specifically, the Boy Scouts - that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

If the court adopts the proposal, affiliation with the Scouts would become an ethical violation that could lead to removal from the bench.

 

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Boy Scouts of America....?"

 

 

[skeptic]

Unless the case to which the judge is assigned has to do with Scouting, why would it have any connection? And, if it was a Scouting related case, then they simply should be willing to recuse themselves. How hard can that rational and common sense idea be?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well skeptic, what if a judge belonged to a whites-only organization, and only recused himself on issues having to do with that organization, but saw no reason to recuse himself in cases having to do with non-whites, or discrimination against non-whites? Mightn't his membership in a whites-only organization bring into question his objectivity in dealing with non-whites in general?

 

The BSA is the same, except it's gays and atheists.

 

Why do you need this explained to you, anyway? Are you completely oblivious to the BSA's discrimination?

[Hueymungus]

Also, we need to stop all Go-See-Its to Fire Stations, Police Stations and stop having all First Responders volunteer as Scout Volunteers. We also need to remove all First Aid training since all we need to do is call 911. We don't need lawyers suing the BSA for helping anyone at anytime.

 

[TAHAWK]

As to religious discrimination and by parity of reasoning, any judge should be prohibited from belonging to any organization that discriminates on the basis of religious belief or sexual orientation.

 

Does any Catholic church accept atheists as members?

Baptist?

Lutheran?

Presbyterian?

Muslim?

Hindu?

Church of Christ?

Zoroastrian?

Methodist?

Sun Cycle Deniers?

 

Should we allow atheist or agnostic judges to preside in cases involving the religious? What might such a judge think of a witness who elects to be sworn, rather than testifying on affirmation? Might he unconsciously reveal his dismay over such a primitive ritual and thus cause the jury to discount the witness' testimony? (In fact, should we allow the religious or the atheist or agnostic to be jurors due to the possibility of discrimination? Who can we trust?)

 

We have forty-eight women-only colleges. Can their graduates be judges in cases involving males or would it be acceptable if they first denounce the policy of their alma maters to discriminate against men? Can they hear cases of women who went to a gender-integrated college?

 

What about judges who financially support discriminatory organizations? The UN has a number of nations who regard being gay or an apostate from Islam as a capital crime. Fairly discriminatory. Some sit on UN Human Rights panels. Do we bar contributors to, or supporters of, the UN from judgeships unless they insure that no benefit accrued to these discriminatory nations.? I trick-or--treated for UNICEF (which got us picket by the John Birch Society). Am I to be barred?

 

And why stop with the judicial system? We have those prayers at every session. "In God We Trust." Sack the whole bunch? And elect?

 

Interesting slope we start down - - - unless this is just "getting yours" against BSA.

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As to religious discrimination and by parity of reasoning, any judge should be prohibited from belonging to any organization that discriminates on the basis of religious belief or sexual orientation.

 

The phrase used is "invidious discrimination".

 

Should we allow atheist or agnostic judges to preside in cases involving the religious?

 

There are still states whose constitutions prohibit atheists from being jurors; they're dead letters, but they're a good example of how mindless prejudice against atheists can turn into denial of human rights like right to a jury of one's peers.

 

See, that's one reason why judges are supposed to be held to a higher standard and not belong to organizations that practice invidious discrimination, like the KKK or the BSA.

[Sentinel947]

Merlyn: what's the definition of invidious discrimination? What definition do you use? What definition does California use? I'd say based on my research the BSA does practice invidious discrimination. Tahawks point didn't get addressed. Why aren't those groups "invidious discriminators" ?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You'd have to ask the California court system what they mean.

[TAHAWK]

 

Yes. "Invidious." Without rationale basis. Like all religion, in your view, which discriminates against the atheist by requiring belief for membership.

 

Prejudice against the churched being mindful and against the unchurched being mindless/ without rational basis.

 

And for you this is all about getting some against the BSA . The BSA and the KKK. Must have felt so good to type that. All those men in their sheets burning crosses and lynching and all those boys in their brown shirts reading the names of the war dead and rescuing TV journalists with broken ankles. Morale equivalents.

 

Well, at least priests wear robes too. And the Sikhs all wear turbans. So easy to identify for the great cleansing of the irrational.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Like all religion, in your view, which discriminates against the atheist by requiring belief for membership.

 

That's not true of all religions. You can be e.g. Jewish or a UU and be an atheist. A few obscure religions have atheism as a tenet.

Also, you may have missed that the regulations would still exempt religions.

 

The BSA and the KKK. Must have felt so good to type that.

 

The BSA compared itself to the KKK in the Dale case.

 

Well, at least priests wear robes too. And the Sikhs all wear turbans. So easy to identify for the great cleansing of the irrational.

 

At least I don't defame you by using clumsy accusations of genocide.

 

Why does it bother you that the BSA's discrimination is so unpopular that it's considered a bad thing?

[qwazse]

If the bar foresees a number of cases coming before it related to the issues of the day, I can understand the concern that judges seem above repute and free of bias. On the BSA's side, I can see where a judge with no perceived bias would help any ruling in their favor remain on solid ground.

 

I don't see these ethics code revisions doing that.

 

A judge might not be a member, but one of his family could have been aided by a group of scouts. (Or, on the other hand, a group of folks whose membership policy is more conforming to whatever the standard of the day is.) I'd suspect that would be more likely to bias that judge more than any membership card in his/her wallet.

 

I can't speak for CA, but round these parts, unbridled enthusiasm for scouting tends to come from citizens who are not members of the organization!

[Sentinel947]

So can California do away with the exemptions for religious organizations?

[TAHAWK]

You cannot be a devotee of the Jewish religion and be an atheist. Many people who regard themselves as Jewish are, of course, not religious at all.

 

I didn't list UU because I cannot figure out what their thing is.

 

My point is there is no logic to excluding BSA on the grounds that it excludes atheists and including deistic religions, which also exclude atheists.

 

As to BSA comparing itself to the KKK, I can't find that. My Googlefu has failed me. Help, please. (But you still enjoyed it, yes? That's OK. Conan explained what happiness is.)

 

I defer to no man in my ability to be clumsy, but "genocide"? Have you not argued that religion is irrational? Do you not feel it needs to "go" in a rational world? Jumping to the assumption that it can only be defeated by killing adherents is a long reach - in our society, Not so much in some parts of the world.

[MattR]

TAHAWK, within Judaism belief in God is kind of a fuzzy idea. Doing good is much more concrete than a definition of God with which to believe in. So while God is central to the universe and human spirit, God is not really defined anywhere. "To struggle with God" is a very Jewish thing (and the meaning of the word Israel). There might be some debate about atheistic Jews, but certainly not agnostic.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You cannot be a devotee of the Jewish religion and be an atheist.

 

A lot of Jews disagree with you.

 

Many people who regard themselves as Jewish are' date=' of course, not religious at all.[/quote']

 

And some are atheists. So who made you the arbiter of who is a Jew?

 

I didn't list UU because I cannot figure out what their thing is.

 

The important point is that there ARE religions that have atheists as members.

 

My point is there is no logic to excluding BSA on the grounds that it excludes atheists and including deistic religions' date=' which also exclude atheists.[/quote']

 

Well, I disagree.

 

As to BSA comparing itself to the KKK' date=' I can't find that. My Googlefu has failed me. Help, please. (But you still enjoyed it, yes? That's OK. Conan explained what happiness is.)[/quote']

 

Enjoyed what? The KKK comparison came up in at least Evans v. Berkeley, the BSA claimed the city would also have to grant public funding to the KKK.

 

I defer to no man in my ability to be clumsy' date=' but "genocide"?[/quote']

 

Yep. "So easy to identify for the great cleansing of the irrational."

 

Don't tell me you don't even have enough spine to admit your comparison?

 

Have you not argued that religion is irrational? Do you not feel it needs to "go" in a rational world?

 

Just like geocentrism has gone. Notice this wasn't done by killing off people who were geocentrics.

 

Jumping to the assumption that it can only be defeated by killing adherents is a long reach - in our society' date=' Not so much in some parts of the world.[/quote']

 

I see, you actually don't have enough spine to admit your comparison.