The Boy Scouts of America

Wiccan_Child · #1 20th August 2012, 08:18 AM

The Boy Scouts of America are infamous for officially excluding gays and atheists from their organisation. Is this a valid expression of their freedom of association?

[Note: This thread is about the morality of BSA's policies and whether the freedom of association protects them - not homosexuality]

selfinflikted · #2 20th August 2012, 08:28 AM

As wrong as it rubs me, I think it is their right to be exclusive if they want.

Jade Margery · #3 20th August 2012, 08:33 AM

Yeah, they aren't a government organization and they aren't a business. They can exclude whoever they want. (They also don't let girls in, the sexist pigs!

)

Of course, that doesn't mean they won't catch flak in the sphere of free public opinion for being so backward, nor does it mean they won't deserve it. But they shouldn't be forced to let people in that they don't want to have as members.

Paradoxum · #4 20th August 2012, 09:27 AM

I get (though disagree) why they wouldn't allow homosexuals, but atheists? If you are atheist you can't be a Scout? Not really sure how you prove or disprove that anyway.

It is as bad as any discrimination, but apparently it is their right.

Wiccan_Child · #5 20th August 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Paradoxum

I get (though disagree) why they wouldn't allow homosexuals, but atheists? If you are atheist you can't be a Scout? Not really sure how you prove or disprove that anyway.

because the Godless are immoral, clearly

Originally Posted by Paradoxum

It is as bad as any discrimination, but apparently it is their right.

As much as I find their policy to be objectionable and immoral, I'd also be worried about the excluded youth if the bigoted Scout Leaders were forced to accept them.

Glas Ridire · #6 20th August 2012, 10:17 AM

The original 12 steps for AA make repeated references to God:

We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

There are the first six. Now, there may be alternate wordings to provide 12 steps to Alcoholic Atheists, but. . . the core, original values lean havily on "God concept".

BSA likewise has a history of Religious/ USA-centric Patriotic theme. Young Pioneers had a history of Pro-communist / Atheistic theme. I don't know about Hitler Youth. . . but it was probably pro-Fascist/ and supporting whatever Hitler's religion was. These national youth organizations promote certain religious and patriot concepts as part of their core identity. Should they really be obliged to change? Both Alcoholics Anonymous and BSA are voluntary organizations, there are other treatment options for people not wanting the 12 step model and there are other youth organizations for homosexual/atheist boys. I am not convinced that organizations founded in the early 1900's should have to change major parts of their core identity to suit the prejudices of today. ... If they are really backward, surely their numbers will dwindle and the organization die. The KKK is truly backward and look at their numbers. . .. not so healthy.

I am not saying the BSA is like the KKK in any way other than time period. BSA born around 1910, AA in the 1930's, KKK peaking in the 1920's . . . I am saying their numbers over time may speak to their validity, an inverse correlation if you will, with validity as a cause for growth or shrinkage.

Wiccan_Child · #7 20th August 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Glas Ridire

The original 12 steps for AA make repeated references to God:

There are the first six. Now, there may be alternate wordings to provide 12 steps to Alcoholic Atheists, but. . . the core, original values lean havily on "God concept".

BSA likewise has a history of Religious/ USA-centric Patriotic theme. Young Pioneers had a history of Pro-communist / Atheistic theme. I don't know about Hitler Youth. . . but it was probably pro-Fascist/ and supporting whatever Hitler's religion was. These national youth organizations promote certain religious and patriot concepts as part of their core identity. Should they really be obliged to change? Both Alcoholics Anonymous and BSA are voluntary organizations, there are other treatment options for people not wanting the 12 step model and there are other youth organizations for homosexual/atheist boys. I am not convinced that organizations founded in the early 1900's should have to change major parts of their core identity to suit the prejudices of today. ... If they are really backward, surely their numbers will dwindle and the organization die. The KKK is truly backward and look at their numbers. . .. not so healthy.

I am not saying the BSA is like the KKK in any way other than time period. BSA born around 1910, AA in the 1930's, KKK peaking in the 1920's . . . I am saying their numbers over time may speak to their validity, an inverse correlation if you will, with validity as a cause for growth or shrinkage.

I don't think popularity is ever a good indicator for validity, nor do I think tenacity is a good enough reason to maintain an atmosphere of discrimination and intolerance.

If the year really were 1939, your argument could say exactly the same: "Look at the huge popularity in the Third Reich and in the KKK! They can't possibly be wrong, because their numbers have only ever increased!".

Also, the AA isn't a voluntary organisation - people in the USA are routinely court-ordered to attend as punishment for some drinking offence or other. This surely counts as an infringement of the First Amendment - unless an atheistic version is also offered.

DaisyDay · #8 20th August 2012, 11:22 AM

As long as it is a private organization, BSA has the right to discriminate. However, as long as it does discriminate, it should get no preferential treatment from government agencies.

Glas Ridire · #9 20th August 2012, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by DaisyDay

As long as it is a private organization, BSA has the right to discriminate. However, as long as it does discriminate, it should get no preferential treatment from government agencies.

Agreed.

Also, the AA isn't a voluntary organisation - people in the USA are routinely court-ordered to attend as punishment for some drinking offence or other.

Well, no. Actually AA is often offered as a sentencing alternative. It is a choice. You may also choose to do straight time in jail as an alternative to a lengthy probation in many cases. Probation + AA = shorter probation just as a little jail time + probation = shorter probation just as straight jail time can = no probation, just as straight probation = longer probation . . . . all of these are sentencing alternatives worked out between the defense and prosecuting attorneys and then presented to judge. NOBODY is sentenced involuntarily to AA.

morningstar2651 · #10 20th August 2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Paradoxum

I get (though disagree) why they wouldn't allow homosexuals, but atheists? If you are atheist you can't be a Scout? Not really sure how you prove or disprove that anyway.

It is as bad as any discrimination, but apparently it is their right.

Like with the Freemasons, belief in a higher power is a requirement for membership, though the nature of that higher power is not laid out by the BSA. You must believe in a deity, but they do not care which deity.

It's based on an honor system. If you say that you believe in a god, then there should be no reason to doubt that you do.