Scouts Are Victims of the Culture War
They couldn’t win in the courts, so the Left is attacking the Boy Scouts any other way they can. Sometimes the Scouts win, but sometimes, as in this case, the Left gets cities and organizations to back out of agreements.
Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts’ rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city’s local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters.
As WND reported in June, Philadelphia’s city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land “in perpetuity” for $1 a year.
The city argues it can’t rent public property for a nominal sum to any group that discriminates.
City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions displacing the Scouts because of the group’s behavior code.
Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.
This is not to say that cities and organizations can’t decide to do whatever they want with their property; they certainly can. But what it does show are the lengths to which the Left will go to destroy something they have a disagreement with. Not content to battle ideas (because they’d lose that battle with the public), they put pressure on the economic side of things, in hopes that they can ruin them financially.
The whole “live and let live” pathos that homosexuals allegedly just want to live by is shown to be the lie that it is; the “let live” part is apparently only supposed to apply to others, not themselves.
This also highlights the differences in conservative and liberal ways of dealing with problems. Instead of letting ideas compete, liberals wish to use the government’s heavy hand to quash anything that they disagree with. The Scouts are simply one of the more higher profile groups they have their sights on.
There is no right to belong to a private organization. There are other organizations that will take homosexual leaders. No one is being denied anything. Free association is still legal, at least for the moment. Therefore, this campaign should be opposed by anyone who still believes in a free country.
[tags]Boy Scouts of America,Philadephia,Cradle of Liberty Council,homosexuals,free association[/tags]
Filed under: Conservative • Culture • Doug • Homosexuality • Liberal
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Why do you think taxpayers (including gays and atheists) should subsidise a purportedly “private” organization by leasing city property for $1 a year? Why should the government pay for someone’s private club? Are you a closet socialist?
I’m not saying that taxpayers or the government “should”, I’m saying they should be “allowed to”. And they should be allowed to without undue pressure from those who purport to hold “tolerance” as a high ideal, but are quite intolerant in this regard. And “allowed to” until the taxpayers themselves require a change, not some outside special interest group.
So, in your opinion, a city “should” have the power to, say, lease public land for $1/year to an organization that excludes Jews? Or Catholics? Or non-whites? Can the city decide to lease public land to the mayor’s son for $1/year?
And what “outside” special interest group? There are Philadelphia residents who are against the BSA’s $1/year lease.
Sorry, but I don’t buy your implication that this is equivalent to racism, etc. The Scouts do what they believe is best for the boys in their charge, and their freedom of association is entirely legal. I think a city is allowed to aid or rent to whomever they please, within legal limits and avoiding conflict of interests.
Thus, yes, I see no problem with giving cut rates to Hadassah, or the Knights of Columbus because of that freedom of association. I’d even go as far to say that they could do this for the KKK as well, but they wouldn’t because that racism is not a shared value, and I would vote out anyone who did do that.
Your example of the mayor’s son would bring issues of nepotism and conflict of interest that are issues with all sorts of actions by a city. No big difference there.
Activist groups have been crossing the country, encouraging this sort of thing. That they found some sympathetic ears on the city council doesn’t mean that their influence was not felt. I mean, it’s been almost 80 years that the Scouts have been allowed to do this. Their rules haven’t changed. What changed was that these homosexual activists have increased in influence. So yes, outside influences played a big role in this.
They are trying to get Philadelphia to go back on its word and renege on a contract, all for legal associations that haven’t changed in 80 years. This didn’t come as some sort of surprise to the city council.
The city certainly isn’t reneging on a contract; the lease has ALWAYS allowed the city (or the Boy Scouts) to end the lease by giving one year’s notice. The city gave such notice a few months ago, and they are living up to the contract because the Boy Scouts don’t have to vacate until a year is up.
The way the city’s nondiscrimination laws are written, the city can’t give a below-market lease to the Boy Scouts. The city would be obligated to treat any other organization that excludes Jews, Catholics, non-whites, etc in a similar fashion. No subsidized rate, but private organizations can rent at the usual market rates. And that’s why the BSA can stay, if they pay market rates of $200,000/year. Or they can move to some other building. Just like other private clubs.
And nobody has been claiming the BSA’s discrimination is illegal, so I don’t know why you mention that the BSA’s discrimination is legal.
Regarding my use of “reneging”, fair enough.
It’s just that for almost 80 years, the city of Philadelphia suddenly decided that the BSA was discriminatory. As I said, the BSA hasn’t changed. It’s still the great experience for boys that it has always been, using the same philosophy.
I keep going back to the upholding of its legality by the Supreme Court to emphasize that this is strictly an issue of policy that was heavily influenced by activists and interest groups, that don’t necessarily represent the people very well. Read the Wikipedia entry about this controversy and you’ll see that, if policy was the only overriding principle here, this would have been done many years ago. Instead the BSA has become persona non grata in a building they built and then gave to the city under this agreement.
And again, this is all within Philadelphia’s rights, but I think it’s an incredibly poor decision, and belies the tolerance love of diversity that the Left supposedly practices. This editorial for Investor’s Business Daily says it best.
Philadelphia can do what it wants, and can make their own rules. I believe, however, that these policies and rules are wrong and should be opposed.
It’s just that for almost 80 years, the city of Philadelphia suddenly decided that the BSA was discriminatory.
It IS discriminatory. Even the BSA says that. The sudden part was when the BSA won their court case and was declared a private group that could ignore antidiscrimination laws, instead of the public accommodation many people thought they were.
And again, this is all within Philadelphia’s rights, but I think it’s an incredibly poor decision, and belies the tolerance love of diversity that the Left supposedly practices.
I don’t agree that “tolerance” extends to forcing taxpayers to subsidize a private, discriminatory religious organization. I would say that tolerating the Boy Scouts is treating them the same as any other private, discriminatory religious organization.
Philadelphia can do what it wants, and can make their own rules. I believe, however, that these policies and rules are wrong and should be opposed.
I believe the Boy Scouts’ policies and rules are wrong and should be opposed, and that includes not using taxpayer resources to subsidize them.
Although I do have a number of gay friends, I’ve never been accused of being overly pro-gay. Frankly, I’m not comfortable with the repetition of the words “gays and atheists” wich I see through these discussions – as if there is some connection between sex and belief – but I’m glad that there are people out there pressing these issues, and people like Brian who are willing to explain them.
A question for Brian: when did BSA change from a public accomodation to a private religious orginization? Was this the result of an internal change, or of an external legal strategy? Do you see this as a sudden change, a gradual change, or something that was always true and was merely recognised formally?
It seems that for decades, people assumed the BSA was a public accommodation, but when BSA execs decided to keep gays out, they couldn’t be a public accommodation and keep gays out at the same time, so they had to argue that they were a private club. So suddenly about 10,000 public schools were running private, discriminatory clubs, and cities were giving special breaks at taxpayer expense to a private club. Everything since the Dale decision is fallout from that.
The Scouts position on acknowledging God has been known for decades. This should not have been a surprise to anyone. It has never been sectarian or denominational, but it has always officially acknowledged God. Now, even with that, you can get all the way to Eagle Scout without being a member of an organized religion. See here and search for “religion” for an example of how that’s done. The main thing is that you can believe what you want, but if you join the Scouts, then you just have to understand what the Scouts stand for. And if you don’t want to say the Scout Promise, if that’s going to be an insurmountable problem, you have a simple remedy; don’t join.
The gay issue somewhat arises out of that, in that most religions, and especially the religions practices by a vast majority of Americans, has moral issues with homosexuality. The main thing to remember is that more religions had this issue in years past. The Scouts have held onto this principle for two reasons.
The first is the issue of gay Scoutmasters. The problems the Catholic Church has had with gay priests, and the public outcry about it, should be enough to convince folks that the decision to prohibit gay Scout leaders is a reasonable one, even if you’re only looking at legal ramifications.
The second is the issue of gay Scouts. I wouldn’t want my kid on a campout sleeping in a tent with a girl, and in the same way not with a gay. I’m not terribly concerned that something will be forced on my boy, but just avoiding any possibility or appearance of impropriety is extremely important, especially in this culture of litigation.
I’m talking about this from a legal standpoint, but Scouts have always–always–put religion-based morality high in their ideals. It has never been hidden. Scouting hasn’t changed. Society has, but Scouting has determined that the ideals are still good, regardless of how society has gone with the times. Those who still believe in those ideals have a place to go, and Scouting’s long, long history of success, based on those principles, speaks for itself.
Those who say that Scouting should be forced to abandon its principles are, in essence, insisting that joining it should be some sort of right, which is it not. The Scouting For All group you link to, Brian, is an example of that. If you have different principles, start your own organization. There’s more than one organization for girls, each with their own principles.
Thomas, the “gays and atheists” phrase you keep seeing is not trying to force a connection; it’s just that these are two groups making the push, partially from the Scouting For All initiative. Again, I don’t think the BSA changed. It’s principles are the same as they have always been. Our society’s ideals, however, have changed, and that is, I think, the cause of the contention.
The Scouts position on acknowledging God has been known for decades. This should not have been a surprise to anyone.
It certainly was to the thousands of public schools that discovered they were unlawfully running “no atheists allowed” private clubs. It was completely dishonest of the BSA to charter units to public school if they were expected to practice religious discrimination.
What the catholic church did was COVER UP molestation, just like the Grand Teton Council is accused of now.
And Scouting For All is merely advocating that the BSA change its discriminatory membership requirements, there’s nothing wrong with that.
1. Then the public school system is woefully uninformed about one of the biggest aspects of Scouting. (And we trust them with educating?)
2. Ah, it’s the COVER UP that was the real problem. The molestation was, what, okey dokey?
3. No, nothing wrong with lobbying. But if that’s all they’re doing then (I say again) it’s as though they don’t realize that there are other alternatives, such as the one I mentioned. Scouting is as successful as it is because of its standards and beliefs, not in spite of them.
Then the public school system is woefully uninformed about one of the biggest aspects of Scouting.
And the BSA was dishonest in having public schools run them in the first place.
Ah, it’s the COVER UP that was the real problem. The molestation was, what, okey dokey?
Of course not; but since the catholic church covered up the molestation and sent the same molesting priests to other diocese where they continued to molest even MORE children, they made it much worse. That’s why so many diocese are going bankrupt, because juries have found them negligent and have awarded large monetary compensation to the victims, many of whom wouldn’t have been victims if the church hadn’t covered it up.
Scouting is as successful as it is because of its standards and beliefs, not in spite of them.
Ever since the Dale lawsuit has been in the news (about 1998 onwards, when the NJ state court ruling came out), the BSA has been losing membership. Cub scouts are down nearly 25%.
Thanks for the replies. I was wondering when the “Dale decision” happened. I just found a web page saying that it was in 2000… which I guess is close enough to “around 1998” for my purposes.
Regarding the back-and-forth here about whether the scouts position on religion is “known” or not, may I briefly tell my story?
I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout myself, at least for a few years. When my son was in first grade, he asked about becoming a scout, but I was working nights … so it had to wait. At the end of that year (last year), I switched to days. As I looked at my various interests (ham radio, camping, canoing, foreign language, kite flying) I started to think that maybe it was now the right time to get involved with scouting. We talked about it and looked forward to it all summer…
… and then I saw the membership application. I spent a few weeks thinking about what our alternatives were and what the right thing to do was. During this time, my wife told various friends about my dilema. They all asked their dads and husbands, and all came back saying that there is no religion in Scouting.
They’re all wrong, of course, but I think this speaks against the claim that the Scouts position is “known” and for the claim that “for decades, people have been assuming that BSA is a public accomodation.”
For the record, I don’t have an issue with the scout promise, and my son is even working on a religious emblem. I do, however, have issues with BSA’s self-conflicted understanding of what “duty to God” means, and with the bait-and-switch tactics they use. (e.g. the “what is cub scouting” page of my area council does not mention God or faith once — not to mention that they’re recruiting at Open House and sending flyers home which say that this is for all boys who are interested in Sports, Fishing, Hiking… etc.)
As for the “simple” answer of not joining, this is not so simple. It’s been said before and bears repeating that if a club were recruiting at school saying that they are non-sectarian, and all that is required is to sign a declaration that you are not a Catholic, there would be issues.
So, to the obvious question “why did you join, then”, I’ll leave that mostly unanswered for now, but I will say that I didn’t join the one at the school chartered by the town’s police athletic league, but joined one chartered by a Lutheran church. At least there I know what to expect.
1998 was when the NJ supreme court ruled against the BSA in the Dale decision, and that was when the BSA’s exclusion of gays got widespread media coverage.
Brian:
And the BSA was dishonest in having public schools run them in the first place.
Religion in Scouting goes all the way back to its founding almost 100 years ago. Unless you have evidence that Scouting denied this when getting public school sponsorships (which, considering the large number of churches were also sponsors, seems unlikely), then your charge of dishonesty is disingenuous.
Of course not; but since the catholic church covered up the molestation and sent the same molesting priests to other diocese where they continued to molest even MORE children, they made it much worse.
Indeed. And Scouting would not like to put itself in the initial position of having this occur in the first place. Can’t blame them.
Cub scouts are down nearly 25%.
Sorry, but Scouting isn’t some MLM scheme, where you measure success by strict numbers. Scouting aims to produce young men of character, integrity and honesty, prepared for the world. They are doing that. If Scouting weren’t successful in that regard, there wouldn’t be so many folks clamoring to get in. What they don’t realize is that Scouting is successful because of the very principles they are attempting to tear down.
Thomas, I’d suggest a look at the page I linked to at the top of this comment. I understand your concern about bait-and-switch, and I admire your tolerance. The founder of Scouting initially in his book about the concept did mention Christianity specifically, as it was his foundation. But in practice, understanding that the skills he taught were for all, he said this:
When asked where religion came into Scouting and Guiding, Baden-Powell replied, It does not come in at all. It is already there. It is a fundamental factor underlying Scouting and Guiding.
Though we hold no brief for any one form of belief over another, we see a way to helping all by carrying the same principle into practice as is now being employed in other branches of education…
Now, this was back when “other branches of education” included the 4 Rs; reading, writing, ‘rithmetic and religion. Public education has changed, but Scouts haven’t bent down to the PC police yet.
When I was a Bear Cub Scout, I led the opening prayer for the annual Blue and Gold Banquet that my pack held, sponsored by my public school. (The news guy for the Today Show of the day, Frank Blair, was the guest, incidentally.) I prayed to the Christian God and that was that. No protests, no charges that the school was duped, and we all went into it with eyes wide open. Scouting has always acknowledged religion in life; always (recent charges of dishonesty notwithstanding).
I can’t speak to what people assume about it, but its history is there for the examination. I don’t agree that signing something that says you’re not Catholic is the same thing as what you were asked to sign. Religion, be it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever, is welcome in Scouting. That is truly non-sectarian. But the principle in Scouting is that religion, acknowledgment of a higher power, in and of itself, is important in a boy’s life.
The second step of a typical 12 step program acknowledges a “higher power”. Same concept. Each is allowed to believe in the higher power of their choosing, but that acknowledgment is a foundational part of the organization.
Religion in Scouting goes all the way back to its founding almost 100 years ago. Unless you have evidence that Scouting denied this when getting public school sponsorships (which, considering the large number of churches were also sponsors, seems unlikely), then your charge of dishonesty is disingenuous.
What? You’re saying that thousands of public schools knew they were running no-atheists-allowed private clubs? Unless you have evidence of this, I’ll go by school officials who testified in e.g. the Powell case in Oregon that they thought atheists could join, or the principal of Cambridge-Isanti high school, who was a former chair of the Three Rivers District here in MN, who told me he thought his high school’s Venturing Crew allowed atheists.
Indeed. And Scouting would not like to put itself in the initial position of having this occur in the first place. Can’t blame them.
Now you’re just conflating child molesters and gays. Sorry, that’s like preventing theft by kicking out all black members and saying 1) only blacks steal, and 2) kicking them all out fixes the problem.
Now, this was back when “other branches of education” included the 4 Rs; reading, writing, ‘rithmetic and religion. Public education has changed, but Scouts haven’t bent down to the PC police yet.
I might have guessed that you would consider official governmental indoctrination of religion as good, and religious freedom as “PC”.
I had a lot to do with getting public schools to stop chartering BSA units, and given your attitude towards the rights of atheists, it’s a good thing, too.
Doug:
Thomas, I’d suggest a look at the page I linked to at the top of this comment.
Which one? The Religion in Scouting wiki? That’s one of the first ones I checked out while I was debating whether I could get involved with Scouting.
The quotes of Lord Baden-Powell are all well and good, but in my mind makes the opposite point. There are scouting movements in several other countries which look back to B-P, and yet will allow atheists to participate. Why is BSA the one holdout? I don’t have an answer, but I think the question deserves some thought beyond a knee-jerk answer.
Public education has changed, but Scouts haven’t bent down to the PC police yet.
Just today my brother brought me my old Wolf book from when I was a cub. I was curious how many “modern” ideas were added in, and how the descriptions of “Duty to God” were worded. I think it’s very clear that there has been much “bowing to the PC police” since the 1967 edition. Huge chunks of “Indian lore” have been removed from the book, as have depections of the “red skins.” Akela was changed (back) to a Wolf, and the Webelos tribe done away with. The artwork has been redone with many pictures reused, simply by painting a few white kids brown and adding a few in wheel chairs.
Off the top of my head (and after only a few brief glances), I see that while I was required to give directions to people lost in my neighborhood, my son will instead be taught to lock the door if someone comes up to it. In 1976, cubs could still kill bugs and stick them on pins. Today, you’re collection have to be vegetarian and die a natural death. We used to be able to make canvas look like dead animals (trophy skins). That’s out in 2003, as is hitting other boys with sticks for a game of “rocker tilting.”
As for the religious requirements, I was simply required to “practice my religion as I am taught in my home, church, or synagog”, end of discussion. My son has a list of religious requirments in his Wolf book which we must sign off on.
I don’t agree that signing something that says you’re not Catholic is the same thing as what you were asked to sign.
Okay, how about saying that Christ was a great teacher but he didn’t rise from the dead?
Religion, be it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever, is welcome in Scouting. That is truly non-sectarian.
When I was a believer, I thought that Catholics, Muslims, and Budhists were all followers of Antichrist and (although it wasn’t my place to judge) all going to hell. Back then, I would have been welcome as a scout leader, but now that I believe that all these people are fellow travelers with me trying to understand the world around them, I am not welcome. This doesn’t make sense to me.
But the principle in Scouting is that religion, acknowledgment of a higher power, in and of itself, is important in a boy’s life.
In 1976, we were told that we were to practice what we are taught at home. In 2003, we’re told that we have to worship God. I have no problem talking about my obligations to a Higher Power. I just don’t believe that this Power is God.
Brian:
What? You’re saying that thousands of public schools knew they were running no-atheists-allowed private clubs?
That’s what I’m saying. Given Scouting’s religious acknowledgment of religion in all its aspects, I find this “shock” to be disingenuous. The tiniest amount of research would have uncovered this “secret”.
There is, I believe, a high correlation between the removal of religious acknowledgment from schools and this “shock”. But instead of just saying that the public school system has changed over the years and no longer has room for religious expression, as it did at least as late as the 1970s when I was in it, they have to conjure up the phony “shock” at what Scouts really is. Same goes for Philadelphia. We’re 3 years away from 100 years of BSA, and just now the public school system is realizing this? I simply don’t buy it.
Now this is interesting. You said this:
I had a lot to do with getting public schools to stop chartering BSA units, and given your attitude towards the rights of atheists, it’s a good thing, too.
Which makes you sound like there is some sort of “right” to join the BSA. Sorry, there isn’t. You want to argue that BSA is a private organization (which I’d agree with), but then you suggest there is some “right” to belong to it. I’m not arguing against the rights of atheists. I would argue that their’s shouldn’t trump that of others, especially in a land of freedom of religion and of association.
Thomas:
I think that BSA is a “holdout”, so to speak, because of the role religion still plays in the larger American culture. In England, for example, the church is less and less a part of people’s lives, and thus Scouting over there de-emphasizes it. To their detriment, in my opinion. And, unfortunately, to their numerical detriment as well. Compare the UK number from 1993 and 2002. While I’m sure the young men they’re turning out are still of a high caliber, leaving this underlying principle doesn’t seem to have done anything for membership, as much as Brian would like to suggest it would in the US. (During the same time period, FYI, the US increased by 35%.)
Regarding PC-ism in the manuals, fair enough. But while we can compare artwork all day, the basic principles really haven’t changed. Some things like dealing with people in your neighborhood reflect a change in the general culture, not a change in Scouting.
No, I still don’t think that choosing a man as a philosophical hero is the same as asking if you follow a religion or not. I think our concepts of what a religion entails are too different to agree on this. Thinking that someone else isn’t going to make it to heaven is not really the main purpose of worship is; it’s not even a small part of it, frankly. I have not clue as to what your depth of commitment was previously, so I don’t want to try to speak to that, but I still want to note that acknowledgment of a supernatural being that wants to be a part of your life is very different from choosing a philosophical model, and hence the line drawn.
That’s what I’m saying. Given Scouting’s religious acknowledgment of religion in all its aspects, I find this “shock” to be disingenuous. The tiniest amount of research would have uncovered this “secret”.
Well, it’s good they were threatened with lawsuits to stop this unlawful religious discrimination then.
Which makes you sound like there is some sort of “right” to join the BSA.
Not at all. But atheists have civil rights, and that includes not having public schools run private clubs that exclude atheists.
Do you think public schools can run private clubs that exclude atheists?
Oh, and I wouldn’t go by WOSM numbers for the BSA. The BSA includes their non-discriminatory Learning for Life program, which has been gaining members (I mean, “participants”) over the years, which hides the decline in their discriminatory scout program.
http://www.scouting.org/media/reports/1999/membership.html
total traditional scouts: 3,411,852
http://www.scouting.org/media/reports/2006/12memsummary.html
total traditional scouts: 2,868,963
But atheists have civil rights, and that includes not having public schools run private clubs that exclude atheists.
People have civil rights to not allow people who disagree with them to meet?
Do you think public schools can run private clubs that exclude atheists?
Um, they already do. The law only says they must meet after hours and not be part of the school curriculum. Just like Scouts.
Fair enough on the stats. All I was noting was that being “non-discriminatory” hasn’t helped the UK Scouts at all.
Look, let me summarize: First, Philadelphia should be able to do what they want with their property. If the taxpayers disagree, there are voting booths. As I said, let them give a sweet deal to Hadassah; whatever.
Second, if you don’t like BSA’s rules, be that tolerant person you always thought you could be, let the BSA live the way it wants, and start your own organization. Don’t try to force others into your mold. Christians did it in 1995 with the Girl Scouts, starting their own organization when they disagreed with the direction of Girl Scouts. Certainly atheists can muster enough support for their own effort.
Regarding PC-ism in the manuals, fair enough. But while we can compare artwork all day, the basic principles really haven’t changed. Some things like dealing with people in your neighborhood reflect a change in the general culture, not a change in Scouting.
I think it reflects a change in *attitude* toward the general culture, but that’s a tangent. The point is that scouting *is* changing with the times. I agree with you that an organization meant to train good citizens should not change with the whims of the day, but it’s interesting to me to see exactly what is being changd, at least in the manuals.
In 1976, I was told that “Scouting does not tell you what to believe but it does ask you to live up to your beliefs.” Either this wasn’t true in 1976, or scouting has changed (and become *more* religious.) They said “one of the most precious freedoms you have is the right to your own religious beliefs.”
I’m sure you see this as a religious statement, but I see it as a patriotic one. I always thought of scouting as a patriotic organization. Compare the above to what is written in the new manuals, and it seems that Scouting is changing to emphasise certain kinds of belief.
No, I still don’t think that choosing a man as a philosophical hero is the same as asking if you follow a religion or not.
I don’t quite follow. Actually, I think the main difference between the statements is that you believe one, but not the other.
I think our concepts of what a religion entails are too different to agree on this.
You might be surprised… but I think that discussion would bring us down an unwanted tangent.
but I still want to note that acknowledgment of a supernatural being that wants to be a part of your life is very different from choosing a philosophical model, and hence the line drawn.
Actually, I understand that Scouting permits pantheists and people who don’t believe in a personal God. It also permits people who believe that God created the world and then went on his merry way. It permits the idea that is a super-evolved being from another planet much like ours. It doesn’t, however, permit the idea that there never was God.
Doug quoted Brian:
Do you think public schools can run private clubs that exclude atheists?
And replied:
Um, they already do.
The link provided was for Bible and prayer clubs in schools. I’ll bet you won’t find Brian saying that Scouts shouldn’t be able to meet at schools. He’s saying that the schools shouldn’t be able to charter them. The article you link to makes the same distinction.
“But atheists have civil rights, and that includes not having public schools run private clubs that exclude atheists.
People have civil rights to not allow people who disagree with them to meet?”
No. Can you read?
not having public schools run private clubs that exclude atheists.
Can you read that?
And Thomas Salivanto has already pointed out the difference (even though the link has gone bad already). A school that CHARTERS a BSA unit is running it, and the school is in charge of rejecting students on the basis of religion. It’s like a school chess club that excludes Jews. A public school can’t run such a club. But if the school makes its facilities open to the public, the school can’t exclude private clubs, even clubs that discriminate in ways that a public school cannot.
I’m not sure why, but just now I received e-mail notification that this page has been updated, even though these last few updates have been there for a few days. This time ’round, I’m struck by the following two parts of Doug’s post:
The law only says they must meet after hours and not be part of the school curriculum. Just like Scouts.
This was about Bible and prayer clubs at school. “The Law” here, as quoted in the article, is a Supreme Court decision concerning The Good News Club vs Milford Central School. The part that caught my attention this time were the words “just like Scouts.”
At the risk of belaboring the point, this isn’t “just like Scouts.” Beyond the issue of who is chartering the Pack or Troop (and thus, who is running it), Scouts often are allowed to promote themseves during school hours.
I also have to wonder out loud whether a Bible study or prayer club would kick someone out who was an atheist, except perhaps if that person was being intentionally disruptive. Does the Good News Club decision allow these student clubs to discriminate? (I don’t know.)
The other part which caught my attention this time was this:
Second, if you don’t like BSA’s rules, be that tolerant person you always thought you could be, let the BSA live the way it wants, and start your own organization. Don’t try to force others into your mold.
Bringing the discussion back around to the Philidelphia issue, I don’t think it’s a question of “tolerance.” It’s a question of BSA being either fully public or fully private. Where, on this page, have you seen any evidence that anybody is trying to put BSA into their mold?
Regarding American Heretige Girls, as a sidebar, one amusing bit of personal history here… as I was debating whether BSA was “too religious” to send my son to, my wife’s best friend decided it wasn’t religious enough, so she’s sending her boy to one of the Christian look-alike Scouting groups.
Certainly atheists can muster enough support for their own effort.
This is a very interesting point and I’m bursting with thoughts about this, but I think I’ll hold back because I can see how easily this discussion could get caught up in side issues.
That said, even with Brian’s “can you read” comment in mind, I’m very impressed with how civil this discussion has been. I had been posting to a different page on a similar subject, but that quickly turned into a bunch of personal attacks against me — or rather, against whatever it is people assume about me. You guys are alright!
Just some quick answers, because I’ve pretty much said my piece on this.
* The Cub Scout pack my one son goes to, and the Boy Scout troop my other son goes to, are both sponsored by the same church. No one from the church is on either executive committee as a church representative. I don’t know what churches all the folks go to, but there is not church “leadership”, per se for the pack/troop. There may be folks there who do attend the church, but their participation is because they have a boy in the troop. In fact, when we needed some letters of donation acknowledgments, no one on the Boy Scout exec committee really knew who to contact. I think the whole idea that “sponsorship” is necessarily more of a commitment than to the Chess Club or the Bible Club isn’t quite right.
* Clubs at my kids’ high school are promoted prominently during registration. You find your bus route, you can also be signing up for the Thespians. Cub Scouts do get their day at elementary schools, as they have for 30 or 40 (or more) years.
* My view of the Philadelphia issue is that they can do what they want for private groups. Any big or small town can make its own decisions in this regard. Let the locals decide if this is a problem. Indeed that’s what happening in Phil., but I just hope the locals support the BSA.
It’s at this point that this becomes a tolerance issue. Brian links to Scouting For All (the link on his name), which is an organization trying to change the BSA; put them in their mold. Their web site is currently unavailable but the Wikipedia entry makes this clear.
* Regarding the BSA not being religious enough for some, different strokes for different folks. That’s tolerance, and indeed it is being practiced by Christians in this regard more than atheists.
* Thanks, I think all participants have been generally civil. I have learned that throwing civility out the window makes the conversation, as you noted, more about what I think you think than what you really think. I stumbled a few times in this conversation, but do appreciate your words.
It’s at this point that this becomes a tolerance issue. Brian links to Scouting For All (the link on his name), which is an organization trying to change the BSA; put them in their mold. Their web site is currently unavailable but the Wikipedia entry makes this clear.
Yeah, I thought of that back-link only after the fact. I still don’t know exactly which of SFA’s points Brian advocats, so it doesn’t really change my point there.
I don’t accept that it’s a tolerance issue, and I have a feeling that you’ve chosen that word simply to try to put the shoe on the other foot. It doesn’t work for me, though. The more I look at my old Wolf book compared to my son’s, the more I’m convinced that the Christian lobby has had an increased influence over the BSA than from when I was a boy. Can’t we equally ask them to be more tolerant and stop trying to make BSA a christians only club?
Granted. Page 98 of the current Wolf book on Religious Emblems you can earn includes Buddhists, Jews, Meher Baba, Protestant, Islamic, Baha’i, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Church of Christ, Christian Scientists, Polish National Catholic, Roman Catholic, Hindu, Quakers and Mormons. Here are the ones for Boy Scouts. Most are Christian denominations, but I’d hardly say that a group that includes Jews and Zoroastrians is a “Christians Only” club.
Some of those would even qualify for your question earlier; “[H]ow about saying that Christ was a great teacher but he didn’t rise from the dead?”
Maybe it’s my turn to ask if you can read. 🙂
I sad *trying* to make. Not *is*.
Indeed. Well, I certainly don’t see anyone trying to do anything of the “Christian-only” sort. And after 100 years to still have a Zoroastrian religion emblem, whatever efforts are allegedly being made don’t seem to be all that effective.
Just when I thought that all that could be said has been said…
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I will go out on a limb to say that it is misleading to say that BSA “still” has a Zoroastrian emblem, since the emblems program is fairly new.
By the way, I think that Meher Baba might be a stronger example for your point. Does anybody know how Meher Baba got approved, while Wiccan, Native American, and even Unitarian programs did not?
You might not see anybody doing anything of the Christian only sort, but I’ve already pointed out one place you could be looking. (But since you didn’t ask for more detai on my thoughts about the Wolf manual, I didn’t think you were interested.)
Here’s another:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257532.htm
And a related one:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/29/scout-supports-nondiscrimination-is-kicked-out.htm
One thing the stories have in common is that BSA will try to force groups like the Unitarians to teach things they don’t believe, but yet will take no action when a little extra heap of religious discrimination is added to the Scouting mix.
Another thing I’ve been trying to get a better handle on is when did BSA start actively opposing Atheists? The membership application quotes the “Declaraton of Religious Principle”, but when was that written? I haven’t been able to find out for sure, but it seems to be a fairly recent document, less than 10 or 20 years old.
Yes, “God” has always been in Scouting – even from before there was a BSA, but at one point BSA didn’t try to tell people what God was, and now they do. Have you read Scouting for Boys? Would Baden-Powel have wanted to kick Atheists out?
I can appreciate the Scouts not wanting someone who’s going to disrupt meetings by complaining about the Oath. Since not all Atheists are the same, many could sign the Declaration with just as much intellectiual honesty as a Budhist or a Hindu could, yet
all Atheists are spelled out as not eligable.
At this point, I imagine you’re thinking that it’s still a big step from excluding religious Atheists to being Christian Only. I agree, but Rome wasn’t built in a day. You can’t turn an organization which will “not tell you what to believe” into a church overnight. I think the signs point to BSA becoming more religious in recent years, and the expression of overt Christianity in Scouting has become more pronounced.
Interesting (and very civil) discussion, and very enjoyable to read.
I was involved with the BSA until I was 18. Two of my best friends and I all reached the rank of Eagle. To us and everyone else in our troop, Scouting had nothing to do with religion. Sure, we earned a religion (not sure of the official name) merit badge, but it was no different that our Citizenship, Fishing, or First Aid merit badges. We studied it, learned about it, and then incorporated it into our lives if we wanted to. If you got the Fishing merit badge, it didn’t mean you had to go fishing every week.
So the Boy Scouts were a good experience for me. I had a number of great scout leaders (both men and women, and none of the women tried to molest me even though they were heterosexual), and I made a lot of good friends.
My wife and I have discussed what we’ll do if our son wants to join. We currently don’t know.