Religious Discrimination? Or just CO Choice?

[SSScout]

As it happened, the facilitator of our class, an otherwise wonderful person, had no inkling as to the "correct" answer to this conundrum (asked by a participant, evidently from experience). ((NB: correct vs legal?)) We talked about it longer than any other question. The group consensus seemed to be more on the lines of "that's terrible, how can they do that, the boy/parents should be able to join any Troop they want, etc."

Bob Whites answer was suggested by one, but not many liked that. I mentioned the mono-faith Troops I had met at the Jamboree.

In our 'diverse desire' soaked group, it seemed unnatural to just deny membership out of hand like that. But I feel, as B/W states, that the CO has the legal right to limit it's units' membership.

But is that 'right'? The reasoning intuited by the group seemed to come round to , well, if the boy isn't "faith A", knowing their attitude, why would he want to join? He'd feel left out, he might end up thinking he's being "proselytized" unfairly.

But on the other hand, the "A" folks might not want their boys exposed to an "unwashed" type, even if the boys are friends in school.

 

So we seek "diversity" and making the Scout program available to every type of social group (religious/economic/physical ability/language/race/education/fill in the blank), but in the real world, it gets messy.

 

How 'bout helping that boy and his folks start their own Troop?

 

 

[Bob White]

In order to support diversity is a unit required to be diversive in EVERTHING they do?

 

If a troop of Baptist scouts serves members of different nationalities, physical abilities, mental capabilities, income levels, etc., are they not embracing diversity simply because they share the same faith?

 

When you ask 'is it right?' who do see getting to decide what right is? If the BSA has no problem with the policy, and the charter organization has no problem, and the law has no problem, then who are these other people to say what is right or wrong?

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

many Churches have Communion, the Catholic Church holds that only Catholics may receive Communion in a Catholic Church. Where does the need to be diverse end and the right of assosiation begin?

[John-in-KC]

If closed membership is wrong, why do we have LDS specific units in all the programs?

 

The only restriction on the Chartered Partner is they may not prosletyze if they open their membership. That's stated on the Annual Charter Agreement (in slightly different words).

[NeilLup]

Actually, John, I believe that LDS sponsored units are often not restrictive in their membership. They are delighted to have non LDS Scouts and families participate in their units. Outreach and all that. There might be some restriction in the leadership that non-LDS youth can hold as adult and youth leaders in LDS units are not necessarily selected the same as in other units but even there, I'm not sure.

 

There are some units which are restrictive in membership although those are rare. Scouting itself does not discriminate but an individual unit may. I would imagine that if the only unit that a youth had available discriminated on religion, the youth could participate as a Lone Scout.

[Bob White]

What the rules of membership say John is that if the unit allows scouts from outside of the faith of the CO that they cannot require a scout to participate in religious worship that is not of his own faith.

 

So for instance, if a Presbyterian church that charters a scout unit cannot require a scout who is not of that faith to attend their Sunday Presbyterian worship service.

[GMitch]

As a Chartered Organization Representative for a LDS unit, I hope to hit 2 birds with one stone in reply to the following posts.

 

As SSScout posted:

 

"But on the other hand, the "A" folks might not want their boys exposed to an "unwashed" type, even if the boys are friends in school."

 

and

 

NeilLup posted:

 

"Actually, John, I believe that LDS sponsored units are often not restrictive in their membership. They are delighted to have non LDS Scouts and families participate in their units. Outreach and all that. There might be some restriction in the leadership that non-LDS youth can hold as adult and youth leaders in LDS units are not necessarily selected the same as in other units but even there, I'm not sure."

 

 

I think SSScout's comment is somewhat true, but not entirely at least in our particular LDS unit. We do have one boy who is not a member of our church in our Troop recruited by a member friend. However, this does not mean that we are open to the idea of ANY boy who is not of our faith joining the Troop. He must be tolerant of and adherent to the standards placed upon our boys not only by BSA, but those that Jesus Christ has placed upon us through the leaders of the church. It is a two way street, kind of a "we can accept you if you can accept our standards" relationship. If both sides agree, then it is a good match. If a boy wants to cuss like a sailor, and bring cigarettes and porno mags on an outing, it probably isn't going to work out so well for us.

 

It is not adherence to the doctrines or ordinances that are important for a Scout participating in an LDS unit, but he must comply the standards set forth by ecclesiastical leaders. We have even had some non LDS Scouters who were spouses of members serve as leaders in our unit, but the same thing applies, he must accept our standards of living and be tolerant of the fact that Scout activities are not just Scout activities for us. Scouting in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for 96 years now, has been utilized first and foremost to accomplish religious objectives in the lives of our boys and their leaders. We think it is an excellent fit when the program is well run.

 

As far as Neil's comment, USUALLY your SPL, PL and other leaders in LDS units are Priesthood Quorum leaders for their particular age group, but not always. To be fair though, I would say that a non LDS boy in an LDS unit probably has a lesser chance of serving in active leadership, because these assignments are usually made by the Organizational Head who is the Bishop in most places. However, plenty of other boys who ARE LDS will also be denied the same leadership opportunity, so I guess you might say we are in fact "equal opportunity discriminators"! ;-)

 

Hope that sheds a little perspective.

[Trevorum]

GMitch

Thanks for your clarifications. It sounds to me like there is little difference in these matters between your troop and a mainstream troop. Every boy is welcome to join as long as he abides by the Scout Oath and Scout law (no 'cussing like a sailor' in our troop either!) and every boy has a chance of becoming SPL, although some boys have a higher probability than others.

 

 

[Stosh]

Just because 3rd grade aged students cannot sit in on 5th grade classes does not make it age discrimination. Just because men can't go into women's bathroom does not make it sex discrimination. People have the right to associate with like-minded people without the intereference of outside groups or individuals. If one does not wish to associate with a certain group, not a problem, but please don't dictate to the group what they can and cannot do and then call it discrimination. Instead, feel free to advertise oneself as intolerant of others who are like minded and wish to associate as such. Better yet, form groups of like-minded individuals and fill up one's free time with more productive efforts.

 

I am tolerant of Catholic churches restricting their membership to Catholics only. LDS same thing. I find nothing wrong with groups wishing to use Scouting to promote the welfare of their youth. Scouting was never intended to be all things to all people. One does not have a right to join any group that has different views and goals for their members than what they want. For obvious reasons to me, I would not want my child to join a group of athiests, what aI can't figure out is why would they would want their children to join a group of a different belief system?

 

If one really were to sit down and analyze the situations one could easily conclude the intolerance oft times is not on the part of the group, but of the outsider who sees value in that group but because of self-restrictions are unable to justify involvement. Thus it's better to force the group to change to meet their standards than to change oneself. Intolerance is a double-edged sword. Ever notice that the biggest promoters of "diversity" i.e. schools, are also the ones with the zero-tolerance policies? Go figure.

 

If a CO makes a choice, the individual can do so as well.

 

Stosh

[Trevorum]

jblake47 writes, "Just because 3rd grade aged students cannot sit in on 5th grade classes does not make it age discrimination. Just because men can't go into women's bathroom does not make it sex discrimination."

 

This is incorrect. Both of these cases are clear cases of discrimination. However, they are socially acceptable and - more importantly - legal discrimination. This is not merely semantics. All people discriminate all the time on one basis or another. In choosing friends, food, clothes, cars. Some discrimination is good and we need to keep this point in mind, that not all discrimination is illegal nor socially unacceptable.

 

However, the larger point is that some kinds of discrimination - while perfectly legal - may not be ethical or moral. Think of the person who was denied employment because they were a different race or religion, or perhaps because they were in a wheelchair. Yes, these particular legal injustices have been remedied in recent years. But there are still other legal injustices, types of discrimination against whole classes of people which, while perfectly legal, are still immoral.

 

In my opinion, it is heinously immoral to tell a 13 year old boy that he is incapaple of being "the best type of citizen" simply because of a genetic quirk over which he had no control. Similarly, I believe it is grossly unethical to tell an 8 year old that he is not allowed to become Cub Scout because of the beliefs of his parents.

[GMitch]

Trevorum wrote:

"Think of the person who was denied employment because they were a different race or religion, or perhaps because they were in a wheelchair. Yes, these particular legal injustices have been remedied in recent years."

 

I don't necessarily think these injustices have been remedied, but rather a social onslaught towards white christian males has begun in an attempt to make everyone else feel better.(This message has been edited by GMitch)

[Trevorum]

Considering that white christian males are vastly in the minority - perhaps merely 25% (70%x70%x50%)- but hold nearly all of the political and ecnomic power, perhaps it's about time.

[Stosh]

Legal and moral are two totally subjective issues. What is legal today might be illegal tomorrow and what is moral today might be immoral tomorrow. It all depends on the whims of human nature. To place personal judgment on certain ideas, activities or persons is discrimination only if it doesn't agree with your own personal set of morals and legalities. Thus people aggrigate towards people of similiar moral and legal values that they like and point fingers at those who don't agree with them and cry foul. Once those efforts become institutionalized it becomes a problem for a greater number of people. Does it mean that the individual changes just become others have made the situation change? Nope. It's just that they in turn become the ostricized. That's why Scouting has become a target, they adhere to a different standard as a group than others do. It's neither a moral or legal issue, it's just that scouting doesn't adhere to everyone's sense of morality equally. But then again, no group ever has.

 

Stosh

[Trevorum]

I venture to guess that a judge would tell you that "legal" is very much NOT a "subjective issue" Rather, it is just about objective as human efforts can manage (at least here in the US).

 

On the other hand I completely agree with you that morality is relative to particular time and place. Morality is ever changing. As you say, "...what is moral today might be immoral tomorrow."

 

As a perfect example, only 150 years ago it was quite moral to enslave other human beings. Today that would be the epitome of immorality. Following along my earlier comment, until quite recently, it was considered OK to deny employment to people who were in wheelchairs. Today, most compassionate people will recognize the inherent injustice in that attitude

 

Although the personal feelings of some people may lag behind, society's definitions of morality WILL evolve. I have no doubt that in another generation the majority of Americans will think it is immoral to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation.

 

[And now, I'll retire from this thread unless a moderator elects to move it to the Issues forum. ]

[packsaddle]

Regarding legality, perhaps he meant 'arbitary' but then that would also largely be a point of view.

I remind everyone that discrimination is perfectly natural and that the most basic kind of discrimination is that of 'natural selection' in which defects and disadvantages in individuals composing populations are 'discriminated against', thus giving the surviving populations greater fitness. The people responsible for BSA's policies may in fact have this as their motive for all I know...."the best kind of citizens..."

It almost certainly underpins many of the religious conflicts throughout history.