Scouts unbowed by Berkeley bullies

Orange County Times ^ | Feb. 28, 2003 | Harold Johnson

[laureldrive]

We think of the frontiers of freedom as being patrolled by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. But these days, the Boy Scouts of America and affiliated groups also stand guard. In courtrooms across the country, they're resisting a domestic strain of tyranny - the totalitarian impulse to police thought and enforce a government-sanctioned orthodoxy on social and cultural issues.The Scouts are loathed by many self-styled progressives for transmitting a code of commitment, stressing God and country, that was supposed to be marginalized by now. But they're not giving in to bureaucratic bullies who try to force them to shed "outmoded" beliefs on matters of sex and social values. Lovers of liberty - even those who might disagree with Scouting's principles - should toast their tenacity for the First Amendment and the right not to be PC.This controversy was supposed to have been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court three years ago. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a five-justice majority said that as a private, belief-based organization, the Scouts are free to craft their own membership rules; in particular, government can't order them to admit homosexuals as leaders. It follows that they're also within their rights to require that members profess a belief in God.But an alarming number of local and state officials refused to listen. In 2001, for instance, District of Columbia officials ordered the local Scouts to readmit two gays as adult leaders and pay $100,000 in damages. This decree was overturned by an appeals court, which noted that D.C. should take another look at Dale.Most of the current government assaults on the Scouts take the form of indirect coercion. There's shunning, as in San Francisco, where local judges are now barred from participating in Scouting. There's stigmatizing, as Connecticut and Portland, Ore., have attempted by excluding the Scouts from the charities that public employees may support through payroll deduction.There's also selective denial of public benefits. Berkeley leads the way by singling out the Sea Scouts for a fee to use the city's marina. After being permitted free use for 50 years, the Sea Scouts in 1998 were suddenly hit with a charge of more than $500 per month. No other nonprofit is required to pay to berth at the marina. The fee is imposed explicitly because of the Sea Scouts' affiliation with the Boy Scouts.High school teacher Eugene Evans, skipper of the Berkeley Sea Scouts' ship, pays the fee out of his pocket, so he can no longer cover membership costs for teenagers from poorer neighborhoods. Some have had to drop out.Unfortunately, a California court of appeal upheld Berkeley's punitive policy in November. The Sea Scouts have now asked the state Supreme Court to take the case. They cite the constitutional rule against "viewpoint discrimination" in the public sector. In other words, if Berkeley decides to offer free berthing to nonprofits - which it has done - it can't pick and choose recipients based on their beliefs or the beliefs of those they're associated with.Several recent "graduates" of the Berkeley Sea Scouts are now Marines stationed in the Persian Gulf. One of these young leathernecks is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Berkeley's anti-Scout policy. All are following in a long tradition of Sea Scouts stepping forward in the nation's hours of need. More than 100,000 Sea Scouts volunteered after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Chester Nimitz reportedly said that the Sea Scouts were crucial to the Navy's ability to regroup after that disaster. But if Berkeley officials feel any remorse at targeting such a worthy group, they haven't revealed it.Today, the Boy Scouts' and Sea Scouts' fight is for the survival of a free and robust private sector, a sphere where all may choose their beliefs and affiliations without preclearance, editing or censorship by the state, and without fear of official discrimination or reprisal. For defending this basic principle of a free society, the Scouts deserve a hearty salute.

[Teacher317]

IIRC, there is federal Hate Crimes legislation out there, too.

[SealSeven]

Thanks for the info -

[RAT Patrol]

I'm not trying to "force" anybody to do anything! Anybody can berth a ship at the Berkeley Marina...

You are lying, madg. You are trying to force the issue -- you and other gay activists like you -- with constant pressure, discrimination, and court costs. What is it to you? Your sexuality doesn't produce children. This is none of your business yet here you are online arguing the point. Not only that, you argued a few weeks ago in support of the reprehensible fisting conference.

BACK OFF THE KIDS!

[RonF]

And yet the national office took it upon itself to ban homosexuals as members and leaders for every single chartered troop. Let's take your example. What if troops chartered by Catholic churches demanded that anyone who supported abortion be denied a leadership post in the Boy Scouts? What if they said that children born of people who had divorced and remarried were illegitimate in the eyes of God and should be denied membership? Should the Boy Scout leadership then ban them from membership?

It all depends on how far the RCC and other organizations that disfavored registering people who supported abortion are willing to go. Would they simply refuse to allow such people to register in their units, or are they willing to go to National and threaten to pull out unless National denied all such people the privilege (it's a privilege, not a right) of registration? And what would be the public impact on the RCC's and the BSA's image if this happened? All this would have to be considered.

Or should they let the local troop make that decision and not force their policies on the rest of the organization?

As far as I'm concerned, they should do exactly that. But it would adversely affect the membership levels of the BSA, especially in Utah and some other western states.

[RonF]

So why don't they define it?

Good question. I don't know. Ask them.

[RonF]

I believe that the Scouts also deny that their policy is discrimination, too.

Oh, I don't think the BSA denies that their policy is discrimination. What they deny is that it's illegal or immoral discrimination. The former has been established in the highest court of the land. The latter is a matter of your own beliefs.

[RonF]

I read the ruling the day it was published... and since then. I still believe that volunteerism is a form of employment. (Think: US Military.)

You volunteer for any job you take. The act of freely deciding to take a given position has nothing to do with employment. The issue is whether or not you're getting paid, as you do in the U.S. Military or any other job. But most certainly not as a Scouter, except for those 4000 professional Scouters employed by National Council and the local Councils.

We're talking about legal cases here. Your opinion in this matter is much less important than the opinions of the courts. And nowhere in any brief I've ever seen (and I've read most of them) is employment law quoted by either the plaintiff, the defendants, or the judiciary as a justification or basis for actions in this matter, with the single exception of a gay man who applied for, and was denied, a job (i.e., to get paid for full-time employment) withe the Chicago Area Council.

Interesting how that last is working out, by the way. The law at issue is a municipal law in Chicago making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal for employers in the City of Chicago. It's looking like it is going to work out that the BSA can discriminate on that basis for jobs that have policy-making or policy-representing responsibilities (such as District Executive or Council Executive), but not for jobs without such responsibilities (such as filing clerk). This would be under an exemption that, for example, keeps the Catholic Church from having to hire gay clergy.

[RonF]

Those attacking the BSA booed them at the DemocRATic Convention probably some of the very same people. They would boo the flag and spit on the military just as happily.

Since you mention this, I thought you might be interested in hearing some details. I corresponded with a Scouter who was present when this incident occurred. The people who were booing the Scouts while they were (at the invitation of the DNC) performing a flag presentation were a small minority of one state's delegation (California). The Scouter in question was near the stage. Only those near the state were aware of this, and even the Scouts on stage were unaware. It happened, but it was not something that had support from any group there.

[RonF]

That last part is most pertinent: “… the group's charter and bylaws do not permit exclusion of any boy.”

I haven't read the BSA's bylaws. I have read the Federal Charter. The latter does not speak at all to either the inclusion or exclusion of any boy. However, there is a publication of the BSA whose authority cannot be challenged; the Boy Scout Handbook. Here's a quote from the very first one, page 15:

A scout is trustworthy

A scout's honor is to be trusted. If he were to violate his honor by telling a lie, or by cheating, or by not doing exactly a given task, when trusted on his honor, he may be directed to hand over his scout badge.

So we can see that from it's earliest days, it was firmly established that there were conditions under which boys could be removed from Scouting.

[Auntie Dem]

And your point is ....?

The real issue in this argument is whether there is an absolute authority to decide what is immoral and moral. The Scouts claim their authority for determining homosexuality is immoral, and therefore absolutely wrong, comes from God. The PC crowd claims their authority for saying homosexuality is good, (or at the very least value neutral) comes from ....?

Just an aside, the PC crowd has been known for arguing many of their non-traditional values are not "bad" because all things are morally equivalent, and that nothing is really "wrong". If that is the case, how can the Scouts be "wrong" to disagree with the PC position? Oh, I forgot, we're dealing with liberal-think here, and the only evil in the world is not the evil-doer, but one who criticizes the evil-doer.

[Non-Sequitur]

The real issue in this argument is whether there is an absolute authority to decide what is immoral and moral.

There is, and the last time I checked Scouts ain't it. Their morality is selective and tailored to fit their narrow view.

[RonF]

There is, and the last time I checked Scouts ain't it.

True. The BSA follows definitions of morality by other organizations, they don't create their own. However, if you check the expressed moral views of the vast majoritiy of organizations that express any views in this area, the BSA is in agreement with them. Very few organizations come out and say that they feel that homosexuality is moral.

Their morality is selective and tailored to fit their narrow view.

What do you mean by narrow? The BSA's view that homosexuals are unfit to supervise young children enjoys majority support in every poll I've seen on the subject.

[laureldrive]

Do you think government should be able to discriminate against churches, too? And what if a gay issues organization wanted to limit membership to gays -- should government discriminate against them because they want to have a belief-based membership policy?

[Auntie Dem]

There is, and the last time I checked Scouts ain't it. Their morality is selective and tailored to fit their narrow view.

Sez you. So, I take it your response means YOU are the absolute authority. It is YOUR morality that is selective. To borrow a phrase..."...what we have here is a failure to communicate..."

You have illustrated my point perfectly. You, as an apparent liberal, are accusing the Scouts of exactly what you are doing to them. You find the gay lifestyle morally acceptable, the Scouts do not. You think the Scouts are wrong, they think you are wrong. Only the absolute authority can decide who is right--and that is NOT you.

We must wait for the day when the Absolute Authority tells all of us, with no uncertainty, who is right. Until then, please refrain from cramming your morality down our throats via government edicts.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Then it could have been some of the good Berkeley creeps under discussion here.

[laureldrive]

Appellants thus remained free to exercise their First Amendment rights

Don't you have a First Amendment right not to be discriminated against by government simply because of your beliefs? Here, the discrimination consists of charging the Sea Scouts for something that other groups get for free.

[laureldrive]

Here's the Sea Scout oath. Why would any city want to punish a group with these ideals?

As a Sea Scout I promise to do my best:

To guard against water accidents; To know the location and proper use of the lifesaving devices on every boat I board; To be prepared to render aid to those in need; To seek to preserve the motto of the sea, Women and children first.

The Venturing Oath As an Venturer: I promise to help strengthen America, To be faithful in my religious duties, To help others, and, To seek truth, fairness, and adventure in our world. BSA Mission Statement The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. BSA Vision Statement The Boy Scouts of America is the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. In the future Scouting will continue to Offer young people responsible fun and adventure Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program. National charter, Boy Scouts of America

[laureldrive]

Please see post 179. It has the Sea Scout promise and the Scout Venturing Oath. They show what a fine group this is. Why must they be punished?