Ouisey wrote:
Don’t get to? You can participate. Just follow their rules. If you don’t like their rules, start your own club. If it doesn’t matter enough to start your own club, then it can’t be that much of a shame.
There is certainly some truth in what you say gazpacho.
I have no reason to doubt that there are troupes that ignore any number of official directives for both good and bad.
However, the national org has recently taken the position that they are a “private club” so that they can legally deny membership to non hetero’s and non theists. That arguement is fine with me, if that is their position they can do what ever they want with their membership policies.
But, they better be prepared to lose any/all preferred status and or support from public institutions.
Right now they want it both ways. I have a hard time with that.
(For the record, I would much rather they drop the bigotted membership practices… but I won’t argue their right to retain them if they end all public funding and support).
GSA is so much better.
I can understand it’s a private organization, and they may discriminate as they choose. But then, it’s not discrimination if they are denied public funding. And that would be the problem-right?
I’d rather see the organization changed to be able to incorporate beliefs/lifestyles that they now restrict.
Jesus. Maybe you think Rosa Parks should have moved to Canada if she wanted to sit at the front of the bus.
Not really a valid arguement. There is a world of difference between equality under the law and the charter of a “private club”.
At the risk of putting words into Lib’s mouth, I would be willing to bet that Lib would prefer to see the same type of change within the BSA, but is pointing out that a new BSA could be formed with different membership requirements and that if everyone (or enough people anyway) felt that the “new BSA” was superior that new old BSA would “effectively” be finished as all the money and support dried up and was transferred to the new one. All this because people were doing what was right by their own beliefs and conscience and not by any government intervention.
How did you get logged in as Libertarian? Does he know you have his password?
“Follow their rules?” The contents of one’s belief systems are not a ‘behavior’. Unless you endorse lying to others and possibly to yourself, you can’t choose to follow a rule that says you need to believe in something that you do not believe in.
Then don’t join it. Damn. It’s simple. I don’t join the Green Party because I can’t force myself to believe in levitation. So I just stay out of it.
Let’s backtrack. Ouisey said it was a shame that some people don’t get to participate in that experience. To which you replied
To which I subsequently replied
So now you’re saying “Then don’t join it”. To which Ouisey or anyone else could quite reasonably say “Gee, it’s a shame that some people don’t get to participate”.
Exit Loop If [This<>makes sense]
End Loop
It has been a long, long time since I was involved with scouting. Given, however, the mind set of the professional Boy Scouts I’ve run into, given the rigidity of a political climate that requires fine men like Senator Wellstone be identified as “unapologetic” liberals, given the character and priorities of the men who founded scouting, I don’t know why anyone should be surprised that the national organization should turn out to be a little reactionary when confronted with any departure from its preconceived norm –that norm being that young men are asexual, adult leaders are happy family men and everyone is a believing Christian. The motto (a motto?) has always been “for God and Country.” Don’t ever suggest that the alternative motto, ‘Be Prepared,” has anything to do with condoms.
Where I see trouble is with the amount of government support the Scouts receive. The military support for the big meetings is noted above, as is the federal charter for the outfit. The BSA may proclaim that they are a private club until they are blue in the face but that doesn’t change the fact that the inconsistency between a claim of immunity from anti-discrimination laws and the acceptance of government assistance in running the group’s program is obvious. It can no more claim both immunity and assistance than can Bob Jones University.
Let me suggest that there is something else going on here (although it was clearly rejected in the Gay Scout case). The Scouts, it may be fairly argued, are much more than a private club. Like Chambers of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs and the like, the Scouts are a vehicle of commerce and the provider of a social net work that may well render it subject to the civil rights acts. In my own life I was asked if I had been a Boy Scout when I sought a commission in the Army. The examining board asked everyone this same question and pretty obviously wanted the candidates to have been Scouts. No one asked about my religious preference except as an entry on my dog tags.
Some how I doubt whether any stand by the national organization on a belief in deity requirement will make much difference in the way Troop 45 runs. It seems a shame however that this young man should be denied Eagle rank, which is a big deal, because of the orthodoxy and dogma of a bunch of professional boys. These things would work better with less adult management.
OK. I get the difference between public utilities and private clubs.
My point is this: wouldn’t it be a good thing if enough pressure were put on the BSA to include atheists/ gays? The BSA is not a little club in my backyard…its practically an American rite of passage, IMHO. Personally, I’d like to think that the BSA could be open-minded enough to change its out-dated laws that say atheism/homosexuality is in violation of its codes of good conduct, honor, etc.
I’d rather see this than to go off in a huff :“I’m gonna make my OWN club then”.
What a load of mularkey. A highly intelligent athiest kid with alot of the same opinions about responsibility to others, blah blah, as theists have, that kid gets booted out. Some moron spouting incoherent blabber about “mysterious guiding powers” or “life forces” or some Gaia nut mumbling about “mother earth”, those people are allowed to stay. Amazing. I think they should look at the ideals they profess to foster, and realize that the athiest kid upholds those ideals much better than some people who they would retain. Check out this quote of his:
Now, if you’re a Christian person on the board of the Boy Scouts, who do you want in your organization? This kid who just indicated a belief in the sort of responsibility to others that echoes the Golden Rule? Or some Wiccan off in the forest making his voodoo twig dolls, who happens to believe in nature as a “higher power”, and thus meets your criterion?
The BSA can determine membership however they want, but clearly this is a pretty stupid reason to exclude somebody. I wouldn’t be surprised if the local chapters do want to take back some control from nationals.
I’m an atheist and made Eagle Scout.
Being an atheist is really not that big a deal. Someone makes a claim about the existence of a diety, we don’t find the proof sufficient, we go on with our lives. Most theists do the same thing with every other god and goddess.
It has nothing to do with being a good scout or following the 12 points of the scout law or the oath. I earned my Eagle scout by earning badges, leading, and my service project, regardless of whether I thought there was an Osiris, Odin, Zeus, or Yahweh.
I can roll my eyes with the best of them, but I fail to see why atheists have better morals than Pagans. Seems to me that moral people are moral people, regardless of their religious affiliation.
I think it’s sad that an organization that does so much good can be so ignorant. I would definitely never allow a son of mine to join the Scouts, simply on principle. Of course, I’m unlikely to have any kids anytime soon; hopefully they will change their policy long before this ever becomes an issue in my own life.
Ummm, that was my point. In this particular case, the athiest in question had morals strikingly similiar to Christian morals, at least in the fundamental principle of community responsibility. Yet he is being kicked out. A “Pagan”, generic enough to encompass some diversity, could express belief in a mysterious higher power, simultaneously express a moral code at odds with those the Scouts profess to endorse, and yet not be kicked out.
Individual athiests have all sorts of different beliefs. I tend not to agree with placing society above the self, but some do. I imagine there is a wide-ranging divergence of moral belief among these Pagans with their various enigmatic higher powers. My point was that this specific atheist in question mirrored monotheistic religion to some extent in his idea of morality, but he was banned while someone whose morals were in opposition would not necessarily be banned. Therefore the question of whether you believe in a higher power does not accurately predict that ones morals will be aligned even in the most general sense with that of the Scouts, and thus their policy is not furthering their aims.
For those interested, at www.scoutingforall.org you can join others trying to get the BSA to change its exclusionary policies both from within and without. They also list regional United Way organizations as well as private companies that have taken a stance on whether to support the BSA. I would also point out that most other countries do not have the same policies as the Boy Scouts of America.
For the record, I am an assistant scoutmaster in the BSA and have never had to swear to any religious belief or sexual orientation.
Also, as far as I can tell from the Boy Scouts v. Dale decision, the Supreme Court only found that the BSA could exclude homosexuals under the doctrine of expressive association, but that they still would fall under New Jersey’s public accomodations law where it would not compromise their right to free speech. In my own opinion, after 13 years in the organization, neither atheism nor homosexuality would violate the principles that Scouting teaches. Basically, it is a good organization whose national board happens to be dominated by bigots.
were it not for the federal and state benefits they expressly receive, the “You have every right to not participate in this organization; they, in turn, have every right to exclude gays, atheists, and Red Sox fans” logic would end the debate.
There is no problem with discriminatory organizations. They have every right to exist. There is a problem with them being funded (even in part) by taxpayers. Especially when their discrimination is arbitrary (i.e. gay, god, etc).
I shouldn’t be surprised… I came here to post about the very same story in ouisey’s OP, and it’s already here and being discussed. I love this place.
Not only that, but waterj2 already posted one of the links I had ready. Scouting for All has an excellent resource on this page about this specific issue. It’s a great starting point to learn more about the BSA’s exclusionary policies.
Their summary said it all for me:
This Princeton Law study also has some interesting info on the subject. It discusses the legal history of similar issues, as well as the position of the BSA in particular. It is, at the very least, a fair look at the problem.
Finally, the Religious Tolerance website has a number of pages on this issue. One discusses where the BSA gets its funding, including the United Way, state and local governments, large corporations, and fundamentalist Christian groups (of course). An interesting, and unexpected, backlash to the Supreme Court decision upholding the BSA’s right to discriminate is that some councils are defying the BSA policy outright:
Also, the BSA’s continued policies of discrimination seem to be hurting their financial backing. From the same page:
Which leads me to wonder if the BSA is shooting itself in the foot via its own policies.
Moving on, here’s a page about the Supreme Court decision, and some of its consequences. Most interesting to me is the numerous suggestions that then-President Clinton should resign as the honorary head of the BSA as a powerful statement, and that the Boy Scouts’ national charter should be be revoked.
I found this argument in particular quite compelling:
My feeling after all of this is that the Boy Scouts of America is a discriminatory organization. They have every right to be if that is what they wish, but in being discriminatory they are also defying the central tenets of what I feel are American principles: fairness, acceptance, tolerance. As an organization which has rejected and continues to reject American principles, they lose the right to funding and support from our government.
As an admittedly extreme example, the Ku Klux Klan has every right to be a discriminatory organization as well, and our laws protect those rights. However, I doubt anyone would say that the government should subsidize the Klan. I feel that the government has no place in supporting the BSA any more than it supports the Klan… not at all, in other words.
Bear in mind that I am not equating the BSA with the Klan. I used that only by way of example. I agree with waterj2 that the BSA is a good organization at heart, and that it has many good effects. However, as long as it continues to support a policy of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of sexuality and religion, the BSA remains an organization whose beliefs run counter to mine, and I will consider them an un-American organization – not because they don’t share my beliefs, but because they defy the founding principles of this country.
I do, however, applaud the decisions of BSA councils that adopt policies of non-discrimination and fairness. The BSA can have many good effects, and by adopting such policies, they can only improve.
Don’t kid yourself. The founding principles of this country had nothign to do with accepting atheism or homosexuality. You may not like it, but people 200+ years ago would not have been very approving of it. I don’t like either now.
Hunter wrote:
Jane is having a pajama party. She has invited Cindy, Laurie, Candy, and Ruth. Meanwhile, Linda, Jeannie, Marcy, and Safrona are sitting around lamenting that it’s a shame they don’t get to have a pajama party. What’s wrong with this picture?
Jane is having a pajama party. She has stating publically that atheists and homosexuals are not good people and are specifically excluded from her private party. The school lets her throw her party in the auditorium, and lets her put up flyers for it in the classrooms.
What is wrong with this picture?