Is there a merit badge for "Fabulous?" (Gays/Atheists in the Boy Scouts)

Remove all ads!

Simple question: Should homosexual boys and/or atheists be allowed to join the Boy Scouts of America?

(What are the Boy Scouts? click here)

The issue - and why I'm asking

 

Here is a view from someone who was a scout and is still involved in scouting.

Of course not.

I mentioned in a different thread that I am the treasurer of our local Cub Scout pack.

The Boy Scouts (and the Cub Scouts) are a private non-profit organization. The Scouts have set up their own rules and if you don't want to follow them you can't join.

As to the two points you mention here is my interpretation of them.

1. Homosexuality- The scouting leadership has determined that being homosexual does not live up to the "moral" code of conduct they require of all their leaders/members. Right or wrong that is their decision and if you want to be involved in scouting you cannot be a homosexual.

2. Atheism- This issue hits a lot closer to home with me. My wife and I are Jewish. My wife was dead set against scouting because she deemed it "A Christian thing" and didn't want our son to participate. It is unfortunate that scouting uses the word "God" so often. The leadership of scouting requires all leaders/members to have faith. In our Pack we have Christians, Jews, Hindus, and a few others that I'm not even quite sure what they are. To the best of my knowledge the only two groups not allowed are agnostics and atheists. If you want to worship the sun and the moon you may.

Scouting is also a very patriotic organizations. That puts off a lot of people as they consider it brainwashing. Scouting is viewed differently by each community. Our local school will not allow us to meet in the school because of the homosexual position. Instead we meet at a local nursing home and at a VFW lodge. However, the school did appreciate that this year our wolf cubs cleaned up the entire school yard in order to earn their bobcat badge

 

Odd, I'm from a completely atheistic family, we don't hide the fact, and I was in the scouts when I was a kid, for a little while anyway.

I wasn't a good scout, I was a bad scout, so I didn't stay very long, but they didn't really seem to care what religion anyone was.

 

Well, it boils down to whether the Boy Scouts is a business or a private organisation. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not about to give an opinion on that. Businesses aren't allowed to discriminate. The real question in my mind (although this isn’t what the court is deliberating, and maybe isn't even what this thread is about) is, does a private organisation have the right to discriminate? I think that they do, provided that the reasons for the discrimination go to the core of the organisation’s existence in the first place. If, however, giving membership to those people otherwise being discriminated against would not undermine the reason for the organisation’s existence, that is (or should be) another matter. Although I was never a Scout, I’ve always thought that the Boy Scouts existed partly to teach some life skills, and partly to teach them how to be good people and citizens; I’m not sure what being gay or atheist/agnostic has to do with that. However, from their Mission and Vision, it appears there is more to it than I thought, and as long as “duty to God” and heterosexuality is reinforced on a regular and consistent basis, then fine, as long as the Scouts is found to be a private organisation and not a business.

 

I'm not surprised being a Boy Scout is supported as being patriotic, considering our president's stance on atheism and more importantly, homosexuality. Can we please get this guy out of office? The division between church and state has long since blurred.

 

I think the issue here is one to do with rights of the few versus the rights of another few. For example, given the private organization nature of the scouts, they have the right, endeniably, of determining their membership. My house, for example, is a private residence. I don't have to let, say, left handed people in (I picked that for the purposes of not being too controversial). YOu can call me all sorts of names and all that good stuff, and maybe you're right, but it doesn't change the fact that your rights as a lefty do not supersede my rights to run my home as I see fit.

Now, once that organization starts to take government funding, then things get sticky, but I know my scout troop as a boy raised all its own money. Bottle drives, fertlizer sales, recycling, etc. No government money = no government say in our bahavious as long as we do not hurt anyone else through direct action.

 

Stop discrimination. Admit Dubya to Mensa, make Mathetais the chairman of Atheist League, make Shura the next Pope and allow me to marry my computer. And adopt children.

 

Hey, I was a Cub Scout, Weebalo, and Boy Scout(made it to Star) and I was an atheist before I joined

 

My initial thoughts: why the heck would anyone want to join the Boy Scouts in the first place? I realize that tying knots is a useful skill, but still... The only kind of knot I could picture myself tying would be a 'noose' and that is only if the one condition was satisfied: I was a member of the Boy Scouts.

*Warning. Rant ahead.*
The problem with the Boy Scouts is that they discrimate on a characteristic deemed immoral by an archaic mythology with tenuous links to reality.

Please realize that Christianity is simply a complex meme. Think of Christianity as an organism (a conglomerate of various genes more specifically), in order to survive from one generation to the next a meme such as Christianity will favor traits (teachings) that maximize its 'reproductive fitness,' just as we would expect from genes. Homosexuality is a danger to the continued spreading of the meme because homosexuals are unable to pass Christian beliefs to the next generation of robots.

Is there anything inherently wrong with homosexuality? Of course not, any clear thinking person knows that.

The problem with the Boy Scouts is they perpetuate the mythologically-based meme that homosexuality is immoral. The continuation of this idea has far reaching consequences. In extreme cases those brainwashed by antiquated religions can go as far to hurt or even murder people based on their sexual orientation. More commonly, however, this prejudice is usually expressed in more subtle ways.

All I can really say that it pains me that our civilization even has organizations like the Boy Scouts that discriminate on the basis of something as unimportant and inane as sexual preference. The best solution, in my view, is simply to boycott organizations like the Boy Scouts and try to establish organizations with similar goals (to teach survival skills, etc) without the baggage of Christian mythology (hatred, ignorance, stupidity, etc).

 

Yeah, Scouting has the right to make the "moral" statements that they wish, being as they are a private, chartered group. In fact, most of the scout troops around here, are actually sponsored by churches, and meet at the church facilities.

Personally, I was a scout for @ 3 years, but it never really clicked. I knew there was a problem when I went to the Jamboree, and wanted to read a book!

I am Christian, and my belief is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. When it becomes wrong is when homosexuals have sex with one another. There is nothing sinful to have an attraction to the same sex, but it's wrong to engage in a sex act for two reasons:
1. The act is not open to the creation of life (the true purpose of sex, the pleasure is just a by-product)
2. It is an act between 2 unmarried people (my church does not recognize same sex marriages) and therefore is just as wrong as pre-marital sex between two hetero-people.

Anyway, not trying to drag down this thread, just wanted to clarify "my" Christian understanding of homosexuality. Please, don't turn this into a religion argument thread...been in enough of those already. Just wanted to clarify some statements that Inquisitor said.

I did learn all of my knots, though.

 

Wasn't this decided in 2000?

From 2000:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=opinion/columns/willgeorge&contentId=A17062-2000Mar25&notFound=true

SCOTUS decided that 2000 case in favor of the Boy Scouts and the Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (well, not really, they weren't a party but you get the drift) in a 5-4 decision. The holding was the application of the NJ law to force the boy scouts to accept a gay scoutmaster interfered with the boy scouts rights under the first amendment to freely associate.

It has been decided. And if Cali tells the boy scouts who they have to let into their clubhouse SCOTUS will give the Cali court a slap on the wrist - unless one of the justices keels over before then.

The legal issue has already been decided 3 years ago. Chalk one up on the side of freedom. (that last bit thrown in for folks to rant about)

 

DMC - The whole private thing is one of those "things" that I never could understand. Any private organization exists in a larger community and is still governed by the society as a whole. Thus, if anyone who is in that organizaton seeks to have the privileges of being a citizen of a nation, and the protection of freedom that goes along with that kind of status, then it would make sense that everyone in that organization is subject to the larger laws. I not saying that the government should prevail above all else; the Law of the Land should prevail except where the government is limited by the Constitution and its additions.

Happily, there is a very distinct separation between Church and State and in most instances a patriot is not forced to choose between the two. This is a good situation for those of us who have faith that extends even beyond the loyalties we have to our Constitution. Hence, a Quaker can be exempt from service to the country by means of religious beliefs. This the legacy of the genius of the men who created our system of government.

IMO, a real patriot is someone who considers himself an American before anything else. I never could understand how a private organization such as the KKK could have freedom to advocate the overthrow of the government and our Constitution. Most regard such behavior as treason. And I agree that any attempt to either overtly or covertly to subvert the Constitution is by definition treason. The Klan is opposed to everything that America is supposed to stand for. Yet, they enjoy the protection of freedom that they would destroy if given the chance. This never has made any sense to me. They are probably only allowed to preach what they do because most don't consider them to be a big enough threat. If they were, would they be allowed to go as far as they do?

Now, I'm not suggesting in anyway that the Boy Scouts are traitors. However, if they claim that their membership and organization enjoys the status of being "American" then they are held by the beliefs that our constitution and the spirit of what the Founders brought to our system entails. Thus, the Founders never said that those who are "gay" should be exempted from the protection of our system of government. At least not that I am aware. If the Boy Scouts feel that they can't live up to the spirit of what it means to be American, then they should not enjoy the status of being referred to as an American organization, since they can't meet the standard of "equality" established by our system of government.

Yet, if the Klan can, why can't they?

[ November 13, 2003, 18:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I guess, Chandos, that we're all afraid of what have might happened if the 1st Continental Congress had been erradicated. The rights of all groups are protected, even if they oppose the standing regime.

 

HS - At the time of the first Congress there was no America, nor was there an American Constitution yet. The Second Congress met in 1775 to begin the process; an army was created and the printing of Continental money. This was after Lexington and Concord. Yet, the meetings were held in secrecy behind closed doors and not open to the public. It was not until the Third Congress met in 1776 that independence was declared from England, again in secrecy. The drafting of the Constitution itself came much later, 1787, as I'm sure you are aware.

Yet, "there are truths that we hold to be self-evident..." I'm sure you know the rest.

Edit: HS - I just had to ask: Given that Thomas Jefferson, the man who drafted the Declaraton, had sex out of marriage with one of his slaves, would he fail the so called "moral standard" of the Boy Scouts, and thus, be denied member status?

[ November 13, 2003, 06:16: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The "scouts" makes my skin crawl. I just have really terrible vibes, but then that was from a few times joining in Australia. Ooooh, I still feel creepy and it was 20 years ago...

 

Different countries, different customs. Obviously. As former scout, I say, no, no such humbug here. And atheists can become scouts too.

All the christian stuff is for the christian groups (rival of the scouts here, but quite unimportant). Don't know what such stuff would have to do with the scouts.

 

I should state, for the record, that I hated the scouts. Not fun for me at all. But, if you want to get on your High Homosexual Horse and state that they should be FORCED to accept homosexuals or atheists, then you'd better tell that to the NAACP -- they have to accept whites (maybe they do, sorry if that'sa bad example) you have to force all bars and clubs to admit the first 250 people to show up, instead of holding up exclusive memberships, you have to tell the Catholics that they must give communion to everyone all the time, you must tell the Jews that anyone can come and chill in the synagogue.

In other words, you have to be willing to shove the governments big regulatory nose right into every private organization's business. It's not possible or feasible or even moral. I'm sure there's no law forbidding homosexuals and or atheists from banding together and camping and learning about the stuff scouts learn -- it's a free country and they can do as they wish -- SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE!

 

Yes, and other scouts in other countries distanced themselves from practices in the USA. Which was their good right too.

http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/082802.shtml

 

When i was in the Boy-scouts i don't think that there was a rule for the membership. After all i think that is the general idea in boy-scouts, everyone is free to join. But things may change allthough we may not like the course.
I don't agree but unless there is a protest by the people who close to the events (and i mean not the participants) then what can someone who lives in a diffenent countrymuch worse continent say.