1
   

The Boy Scouts in the cross hairs

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 08:56 am
The Boy Scouts in the cross hairs[/u]
Rich Lowry
March 11, 2004

Are courtesy and cheerfulness religious tenets? Is building a campfire a sacred rite? Is a neckerchief the equivalent of a priest's stole?


In their determination to do legal injury to the Boy Scouts in any way possible, the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the Scouts are effectively answering "yes," "yes" and "yes." In the wake of the Supreme Court's Dale decision in 2000, upholding the right of the Scouts to keep homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, there has been a wide-ranging effort to punish the Scouts for exercising their First Amendment right of free association. The latest hit, in San Diego, depends on the absurd argument that the Boy Scouts are a kind of church.

Who knew that an institution pulled straight from a Norman Rockwell painting would become "controversial," the contemporary euphemism for "under assault by the Left," and therefore likely to be abandoned by the gutless and easily-cowed everywhere? The Supreme Court just declined to hear a Boy Scout appeal of a Connecticut decision to single them out for exclusion from a list of 900 charities that were part of a state-worker voluntary-donation plan. This might endanger 150-something similar donation plans around the country. Meanwhile, United Way chapters are being pressured to stop donating to the Scouts, and roughly 60 have knuckled under.

This squeeze on charitable giving will hurt most those poor urban kids who can't afford things like their own uniforms. Little do such kids know that in wanting to develop their character and skills they are committing, by extension, alleged acts of bigotry. They are among the 1 million American boys who are collateral damage in the anti-Scout blitzkrieg.

The ACLU is making this "gotcha" argument in San Diego: The Boy Scouts claimed in the Dale case that they are a religious organization, but if they are indeed a religious organization, they shouldn't be receiving public benefits. The Solomonic souls on the San Diego City Council bought it. The city agreed to cancel a lease in Balboa Park with the Boy Scouts and pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in legal fees, thus subsidizing its harassment of the Scouts. Maybe San Diego taxpayers can pony up cash to support the ACLU's work on behalf of exotic dancers next.

It is possible to be an organization made up of religious believers without being a religion or a church, as the Scouts are arguing in a countersuit in San Diego. California's liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held: "First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."

Does this describe the Scouts? The Boy Scouts ask members to do their duty to country and God, but the "imponderables" usually don't go much deeper than how to tie a figure-eight knot. Christians, Jews, Muslims, anyone who believes in God qualifies as a member, which makes the organization an odd sort of religion. The Scout Law provides that a scout be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent -- a laundry list of virtues that is thoroughly nonsectarian and nonobjectionable.

The Scouts' attackers are not seeking "neutrality" in how the government regards religion. They want to whip any organization with a serious commitment to morality out of the public arena, enshrining what Justice Arthur Goldberg once called "a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular."

Liberal commentators have charged that President Bush, by endorsing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has "reignited" the culture war. The ongoing anti-Scout campaign shows that the culture war was raging long before Bush's entry into it, and that the aggressors are those who hate the Boy Scouts and all that they represent. For them, "scout's honor" are fighting words.


Navigate your way here.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,490 • Replies: 43
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 09:33 am
This is silly (and I am shocked, shocked that Fedral would post a silly article.)

The issue is whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Trying to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy is very different that "trying to do legal injury in every way possible".

It seems likely that when the Scouts decide to change their policy to disciminate against homosexuals, the legal efforts will stop and the Boy Scouts will be fine.

The ACLU is doing what we pay them to do. They are defending rights. You can't fault them for that.

And, what happened seems pretty fair. The Scouts won the right to continue to discriminate, and they lost the right to be force states to support them.

Ya win some, Ya lose some... and life goes on.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:00 am
"The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways," says ACLU Executive Director Linda Hills. "If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy. Tax dollars should not be spent to promote intolerance."
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:12 am
Point to Ponder:

Is Rich Lowry, the author of that impassioned column extending his life by venting his outrage on a regular basis--or is he reinforcing the Type A behavior that will bring him to an early grave?
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:14 am
The Hitler Youth Corps, as well as the Junior Klansmen and the He-Man Woman-Haters Club, are monitoring this story with more than casual interest.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 11:53 am
What government subsidy are the Boy Scouts getting? I don't recall much tax money being spent on the Scouts. Anyone have any data on this?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 11:55 am
Greyfan wrote:
The Hitler Youth Corps, as well as the Junior Klansmen and the He-Man Woman-Haters Club, are monitoring this story with more than casual interest.


So now you are equating the Boy Scouts with the Klan and Hitler.

You just have NO clue what Scouting stands for.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:02 pm
This isn't about the Boy Scouts as an organization. It has nothing to do with what Scouting stands for.

The issue is whether a public organization (or an organization receiving public support) has the right to discriminate.

If they drop their institutional discrimination against homosexuals this problem will go away.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:39 pm
Public support? It's a private organization, not sure what public support they get...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 02:32 pm
First of all as a non profit organization they are tax exempt. At least in the northeast, they own a good deal a valuable property used for scout camps etc.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 02:39 pm
The issue in the current case was if the state of Connecticut could kick the Boy Scouts off of a list of organizations to which state employess can make charitable contributions that are automatically deducted from their checks.

The court has upheld the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization to discriminate.

The court has also upheld the right of the State of Connecticut to exclude an organization that discriminates from its charitable giving program (which is a public program).

This seems like a good balance.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:04 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
This is silly (and I am shocked, shocked that Fedral would post a silly article.)

The issue is whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Trying to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy is very different that "trying to do legal injury in every way possible".

It seems likely that when the Scouts decide to change their policy to disciminate against homosexuals, the legal efforts will stop and the Boy Scouts will be fine.

So you see nothing wrong in using the courts to punish a group for their religious beliefs and political positions? Really???
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:12 pm
Scrat wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
This is silly (and I am shocked, shocked that Fedral would post a silly article.)

The issue is whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Trying to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy is very different that "trying to do legal injury in every way possible".

It seems likely that when the Scouts decide to change their policy to disciminate against homosexuals, the legal efforts will stop and the Boy Scouts will be fine.

So you see nothing wrong in using the courts to punish a group for their religious beliefs and political positions? Really???


No one said anything about "using the courts to punish a group for their religious beliefs and political positions". That is not what is happening.

The court simply said that a State (in this case Connecticut) has the right to exclude a group that practices discrimination from its chariable giving program.

The issue is the right of the State of Connecticut to not include an organization that discriminates against some of its citizens

There's nothing more here.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:48 pm
Sorry E, but you wrote:

Quote:
It seems likely that when the Scouts decide to change their policy to disciminate against homosexuals, the legal efforts will stop and the Boy Scouts will be fine.

You clearly see this as punitive prosecution or you wouldn't claim that it will stop when they change their policy on excluding gay scout masters. You stated (not Fedral, not me, YOU) that further "legal efforts" against them will stop when they change their policy. How can that be anything but using the courts to punish them for their stance on this issue? You don't get to have it both ways; stating that they are being taken to court for their policy on the one hand, and then trying to argue that it isn't that at all.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:51 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Public support? It's a private organization, not sure what public support they get...


I don't have the exact info on hand but they receive a lot in way of public support.

They get special access to school facilities in many districts, they get discounted leases of public property (e.g. in San Diego there is a controversy over their use of Balboa Park)...

There are a lot of ways this organization receives public support.

IMO, the public support should be withdrawn and they can restrict their fellowship to whoever they desire.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:53 pm
They are not "being punished", Scrat. They are being invited to come into the 21st century -- and to stop their discrimination.

Or at least, that is how I see it -- and from the sounds of things -- that is how several of us see it.

All a matter of perspective.

But as usual, when the courts rule in favor of liberal causes, conservatives have go ape -- just as when the courts rule in favor of conservative causes, liberals go ape.

People on both sides ought to practice not being so knee-jerk in their reactions.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 04:09 pm
Considering Baden Powell's fondness for fresh faced young "companions," perhaps its time for the scouts to come out of the closet? Wink
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 04:14 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
They are not "being punished", Scrat. They are being invited to come into the 21st century -- and to stop their discrimination.

The courts ruled that here in the 21st century the Boy Scouts have a right to consider sexual orientation when choosing who they allow to become scoutmasters.

I only entered this discussion to challenge EBPs clear assertion that they were being dragged into court for having a policy the courts have deemed perfectly legal, and that they should expect to continue to be until they change this policy.

Now, you may not want to call that "being punished", but if a liberal group were being treated this way, I am quite convinced that is exactly what you would call it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 04:14 pm
Scrat wrote:
Sorry E, but you wrote:

Quote:
It seems likely that when the Scouts decide to change their policy to disciminate against homosexuals, the legal efforts will stop and the Boy Scouts will be fine.

You clearly see this as punitive prosecution or you wouldn't claim that it will stop when they change their policy on excluding gay scout masters. You stated (not Fedral, not me, YOU) that further "legal efforts" against them will stop when they change their policy. How can that be anything but using the courts to punish them for their stance on this issue? You don't get to have it both ways; stating that they are being taken to court for their policy on the one hand, and then trying to argue that it isn't that at all.


No, I don't see this as "punitive prosecution".

I was just pointing out that no one is against the Boy Scouts . The only issue is the discrimination.

In the current case the Boy Scouts are the Plaintiffs. The case is about the rights of the State of Connecticut to exclude an organization from a charitable donation program because it discriminates against some of its citizens.

The rights of the Boy Scouts are not an issue in this case (although as I mentioned, their right to discriminate was protected in previous decisions).

The court simply protected the rights of the State of Connecticut.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 04:15 pm
And Scrat,

In this argument *you* are taking the "Liberal" position. We conservatives have always defended State's Rights.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Boy Scouts in the cross hairs
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 01:33:14