Shoulds gays allowed to be in the Boy Scouts?

[ChristianCenturion]

Are you aware of what it is to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop?

You are aware that the federal government agrees that US Military units must not sponsor Boy Scout troops because to do so would be for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination.

Or, do you think that it's perfectly OK and constitutional for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination?

So we wish to discuss Military sponsorship:
Excerpt~
"At issue is an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging DoD's support of the Boy Scouts. The ACLU suit centers on the Scout oath, which acknowledges God. The group said the oath violates Scouts' religious liberty and that government sponsorship of the program is tantamount to religious discrimination.


DoD, however, has a departmentwide policy that prohibits official sponsorship of any nonfederal organization, including the Boy Scouts. Officials said the department entered into a limited partial settlement that reiterates this policy.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Richard, a DoD spokesman, said the partial settlement will have minimal effect on the military's relationship with the Boy Scouts. "The settlement does not prohibit the Department of Defense from supporting the Boy Scouts of America," he said. "Boy Scout units are permitted to meet on military bases, and military personnel are allowed to remain active in Boy Scout programs." Legislation in both the Senate and House of Representatives aims to protect DoD and other federal agencies that sponsor the Scouts."

Another Excerpt~
" But Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Richards said Monday's partial settlement will have minimal impact on the military's relationship with the Boy Scouts.
"The settlement does not prohibit the Department of Defense from supporting the Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scout units are permitted to meet on military bases, and military personnel are allowed to remain active in Boy Scout programs," Col. Richards said.
"Under the very limited settlement applying existing DoD policy, DoD may not officially sponsor Boy Scout units and DoD personnel may not sponsor Boy Scout units in an official capacity," he said, referring to the Department of Defense. "We are still going to support the Boy Scouts of America."
The ACLU sued Chicago Public Schools and the department in 1999 for sponsoring Boy Scout activities. The ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits across the country in the past several years, because it objects to the Boy Scouts' requirement that its members believe in God and because the group does not allow open homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters.
At the time of this lawsuit, about 400 Boy Scout troops were officially sponsored by U.S. military bases. Since then, Mr. Bork said, all those troops have changed their charters and are now sponsored by Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion posts, as well as churches and other groups.
That is the practical effect that the ACLU was looking for, said Ed Yohnka, the group's Illinois spokesman.
"It was never our aim to somehow bar the Boy Scouts from using any facility. They should have equal access like anyone else. The only question was whether there should be any kind of special relationship," Mr. Yohnka said."


And yes, I notice the drift from the "And of course, no public school, police station, fire station or other government body should sponsor any Boy Scout troops." to U.S. Military units, but I accepted the task of addressing the drift anyway.

 

[crazyfingers]

*Snip*

All supporting what I've said.

In any case, you have not answered the question.

Do you think that it's perfectly OK and constitutional for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination? If not, then you can't support the idea of government sponsoring BSA troops because that would amount to the government engaging in religious discrimination.

 

[Scally Cap]

But of course, if people wish to continue to harass children and drag a Christian organization to the courts

Note: not picking on you, CC, just grabbing your post as a convenient one to quote.

The BSA is a private organization and can discriminate however it wants as long as it doesn't take federal funds. That's established. But when that discrimination is justified by saying it's a "Christian organization" there's a big problem--namely, BSA is a nondenominational organization:

MISSION STATEMENT:
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent


The Oath indeed invokes a deity--but BSA recognizes just about every conceivable religion, sect, denomination in the book. Nowhere in the mission statement or discussion of scouting values is a requirement of Christianity mentioned. The Oath doesn't invoke Christ. The Law doesn't include "Christian." So the BSA arguing for discrimination based on the moral edicts of some (meaning "many, but not all") Christian denominations is disingenuous at best, and deliberately dishonest at worst.

Boy Scout organizations in other countries do not share BSA's discriminatory policies. It should also be pointed out that the Girl Scouts are not formally associated with BSA, and do not require either heterosexuality or confirmed theism for members and leaders--although they're not perfect in the implementation of those policies (if you'd rather read a version making GSA out to be screeching PC feminista lesbian banshees, you can find that here).

 

[ChristianCenturion]

All supporting what I've said.

In any case, you have not answered the question.

Do you think that it's perfectly OK and constitutional for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination? If not, then you can't support the idea of government sponsoring BSA troops because that would amount to the government engaging in religious discrimination.

If that allegedly supports EVERYTHING you have said, then some elaboration or qualification to the over-generalized statements made would have been helpful.

But as for your "question" and as I have already stated very early in the thread,
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19879912&postcount=6
with more court decisions
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19934479&postcount=101
... people's "opinions" on this matter involving a clear decision is irrelevant to the status quo. Couple that with the fact that this thread covers a 4.2 issue and requires evidence with any "opinion", I will refrain from the additional and pointless work you request of me.
I also don't usually entertain formed Either/Or questions demanded by the opposing view anyway. Those tend to choke intellectual honesty and attempt to limit reality.

 

[crazyfingers]

If that allegedly supports EVERYTHING you have said, then some elaboration or qualification to the over-generalized statements made would have been helpful.

But as for your "question" and as I have already stated very early in the thread,
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19879912&postcount=6
with more court decisions
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19934479&postcount=101
... people's "opinions" on this matter involving a clear decision is irrelevant to the status quo. Couple that with the fact that this thread covers a 4.2 issue and requires evidence with any "opinion", I will refrain from the additional and pointless work you request of me.
I also don't usually entertain formed Either/Or questions demanded by the opposing view anyway. Those tend to choke intellectual honesty and attempt to limit reality.

That's a non-answer.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Note: not picking on you, CC, just grabbing your post as a convenient one to quote.

The BSA is a private organization and can discriminate however it wants as long as it doesn't take federal funds. That's established. But when that discrimination is justified by saying it's a "Christian organization" there's a big problem--namely, BSA is a nondenominational organization:

MISSION STATEMENT:
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent


The Oath indeed invokes a deity--but BSA recognizes just about every conceivable religion, sect, denomination in the book. Nowhere in the mission statement or discussion of scouting values is a requirement of Christianity mentioned. The Oath doesn't invoke Christ. The Law doesn't include "Christian." So the BSA arguing for discrimination based on the moral edicts of some (meaning "many, but not all") Christian denominations is disingenuous at best, and deliberately dishonest at worst.

This response is at least in keeping with fact and highlights some important distinction that is not widely known - in that the BSA does not confine itself to "Christianity" in its general self-definition. However, the references that the public make about the BSA being a Christian organization is understandable given the majority of support:
A Sampling of Organizations That Support the Program of the Boy Scouts of America.
But the public's use MAY also be a true statement given that the group (which may be a Christian group) that sponsors (the troop) is not restricted from NOT practicing their religious tenets, having to abandon their religious identity, and is in fact encouraged to teach their religious belief/doctrine:

REVERENT A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.
Excerpt~
“Duty to God”
In the Scout Oath, a Scout promises to do his “duty to God,” and in the Scout Law he promises to be “reverent.”

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains a Scouts’ “duty to God” as “Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.”

The Handbook explains “reverent” as “A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.”

All levels of advancement in the Scouting program have requirements recognizing “duty to God”:
...

Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, § 1, cl. 1
“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of the members should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life."
http://www.bsalegal.org/quot;dut-155.htm

Although you make an excellent point in the discussion regarding the universal religious identity of the BSA, it appears that the main leadership of the BSA remains free to continue representing the best interests of the majority within its components by the verdict of The Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale.

I also wish to thank your contribution because I think some of the Atheists may have been derailed by your observation - in that the government can't be "favoring" a particular religious sect if the BSA by group definition is not a particular religious sect.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That's a non-answer.

I wasn't under the impression that a "question" was a requirement or a demand.

 

[crazyfingers]

I also wish to thank your contribution because I think some of the Atheists may have been derailed by your observation - in that the government can't be "favoring" a particular religious sect if the BSA by group definition is not a particular religious sect.

I have yet to see any atheist claim that the BSA is defined as a Christian organization. Claims of that sort generally come from Christians.

As it is, the BSA went to court to over whether it is a private club or whether it is a "public accommodation." (Public accommodations can't discriminate on the basis of religion whereas private clubs can) The court ruled that they are a private club and can discriminate on the basis of religion - which they do.

It doesn't matter that they are not favoring any particular sect. What matters is that they discriminate against nontheists. That is discrimination on the basis of religion.

Because they discriminate on the basis of religion and exclude people based on that, the government is can not legally sponsor the BSA because that would amount to government discrimination against some people on the basis of religion.

This really is all very simple stuff.

 

[crazyfingers]

I wasn't under the impression that a "question" was a requirement or a demand.

However it's revealing that you resist answer this simple question.

Do you think that it's perfectly OK and constitutional for the federal government to engage in religious discrimination?

 

[LittleNipper]

Are you asking if it is right for the Federal Government to engage in discrimination against religion?

 

[crazyfingers]

Are you asking if it is right for the Federal Government to engage in discrimination against religion?

I am asking CC say whether he believes that it's OK for the Federal Government to discriminate against people on the basis of the religion (or lack of religion) that someone holds to. Because to admit that it's not OK for the federal government to discriminate against someone based on that someone's religious beliefs (or lack of such) would automatically make it wrong for the federal government to sponsor Boy Scout troops.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I have yet to see any atheist claim that the BSA is defined as a Christian organization. Claims of that sort generally come from Christians.

You mean that the people sponsoring a given troop are free to declare their religious allegiance? (*gasp*) The horror!

As it is, the BSA went to court to over whether it is a private club or whether it is a "public accommodation." (Public accommodations can't discriminate on the basis of religion whereas private clubs can) The court ruled that they are a private club and can discriminate on the basis of religion - which they do.

It doesn't matter that they are not favoring any particular sect. What matters is that they discriminate against nontheists. That is discrimination on the basis of religion.

Because they discriminate on the basis of religion and exclude people based on that, the government is can not legally sponsor the BSA because that would amount to government discrimination against some people on the basis of religion.

This really is all very simple stuff.

Yes, it is simple. So simple, that even you have stated the KEY issue - I highlighted the relevant portion within your post.

 

[crazyfingers]

You mean that the people sponsoring a given troop are free to declare their religious allegiance? (*gasp*) The horror!

Is there some reason why you think that I would be against that?

Yes, it is simple. So simple, that even you have stated the KEY issue - I highlighted the relevant portion within your post.

Hello? I have never claimed that they do not have the right to discriminate. I have claimed that if they choose to discriminate then they must not receive special preference and support from the government because that would amount to religious discrimination on the part of the government.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Is there some reason why you think that I would be against that?



Hello? I have never claimed that they do not have the right to discriminate. I have claimed that if they choose to discriminate then they must not receive special preference and support from the government because that would amount to religious discrimination on the part of the government.

And I have not asserted that they SHOULD be given "special" preference. What I HAVE done was challenged an over-generalized use of "sponsor" and submitted clarification regarding "sponsoring" so that others may see that it isn't a blanket prohibition of the BSA.

 

[Phred]

And we're no further than we were before all this obfuscation... as a private organization if the BSA wishes to discriminate against others they certainly may. By choosing to discriminate openly they also choose to forfeit federal funds.

 

[sethad]

well we all know how threads like this will work. everyday another newbie will find it, post in it, get it started all over, then another one....etc

 

[ChristianCenturion]

well we all know how threads like this will work. everyday another newbie will find it, post in it, get it started all over, then another one....etc

Pretty much.

 

[crazyfingers]

And I have not asserted that they SHOULD be given "special" preference. What I HAVE done was challenged an over-generalized use of "sponsor" and submitted clarification regarding "sponsoring" so that others may see that it isn't a blanket prohibition of the BSA.

I have not over generalized the use of the world Sponsor. So why have you been arguing with me?

 

[Scally Cap]

I also wish to thank your contribution because I think some of the Atheists may have been derailed by your observation - in that the government can't be "favoring" a particular religious sect if the BSA by group definition is not a particular religious sect.

Crazyfingers responded already, so this is just echoing him, but no--the issue is the government favoring theism over atheism. I would be just as opposed to the local chapter of Atheists R Us receiving federal funds and preferential access to schools if they mandated deity denial.

On another note, the sponsoring institution for a troop or pack cannot mandate subscription to a particular religious belief as a condition for membership. If the only pack in town is run out of the Catholic parish, boys can't be denied membership because they're Baptist or Jewish--so the argument that majority rules falls flat.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Crazyfingers responded already, so this is just echoing him, but no--the issue is the government favoring theism over atheism. I would be just as opposed to the local chapter of Atheists R Us receiving federal funds and preferential access to schools if they mandated deity denial.

On another note, the sponsoring institution for a troop or pack cannot mandate subscription to a particular religious belief as a condition for membership. If the only pack in town is run out of the Catholic parish, boys can't be denied membership because they're Baptist or Jewish--so the argument that majority rules falls flat.

Also, the Boy Scouts isn't just Christian. They take all people who adhere to a theistic religion or worldview. But atheists are not wanted.