Atheist Scout fights decision to boot him That's the story, from the Seattle Times. Commentary It seems that some people just don't get it. While institutional persecution of anyone, be they Christian, atheist, black, white, &c., is something which society recognizes is wrong. However, in this case, the complaining atheist has overlooked a vital point which does come from our own Seattle-area courts. • Judo Champion Refuses to Bend in Lawsuit It seems that conservative Christians took issue at the notion of having to bow during a judo contest. That case went to US District court, where Judge Robert Lasnik dissolved a '97 injunction exempting the Christian competitors from bowing. See Teens Lose in Judo Lawsuit. The Judge noted: At issue with the present Boy Scouts' lawsuit seems to be a form of this very principle. Theoretically, private organizations in the U.S. have the right to determine their own codes of conduct within certain limits. In recent homosexual considerations, I've mentioned clubs that had anti-heterosexual rules. They cannot bar you from entering based on your heterosexuality, but they can demand that you do not conduct yourself in an "overtly" heterosexual manner. The Boy Scouts, for all their prestige, are a private organization, and as the courts reminded regarding homosexual issues, entitled to their standards. If one of those standards of conduct is so offensive to the atheist, the atheist ought to consider why he is involved with this organization in the first place. I have the right to my conscience were I to be a Republican, for instance. But, being that my political opinions differ from the Republican party on several issues quite severely, I cannot expect the party to show the same enthusiasm supporting me as they would one cut from their own cloth. And this seems to be the issue. The Seattle Times article makes mention of a 1998 case in which Eagle Scouts could still earn their badges despite their objections to God, but Lasnik's decision in the Judo case is more recent and its principles tread into the present. It seems to me that Lambert, the offended atheist, must decide whether the standards of the Boy Scouts of America are those he wishes to represent, and to represent him. Does he have the "right" to any perceived "prestige" of the Boy Scouts? (Does it look good on a college application or resume?) The solution seems clear: if the oaths of the BSA are truly that problematic to his conscience, then he should not be a Scout. Boy Scouts is not a political organization, nor a political office. It is not a public body subject to the rules governing public bodies. They have a right to hold whatever outmoded, exclusionary standards they wish, as illustrated by the courts' decision to uphold the exclusion of homosexuals. The more appropriate course of action, preferable to a lawsuit, would be to lobby supporting organizations to end their support of BSA. In the wake of the homosexual scout debate, many private organizations withdrew their support on principle, and some public bodies were forced by law to withdraw their support, as the Scouts' standards violated local diversity and antiexclusionary statutes. It's a sad, self-inflicted blow against the Boy Scouts, and a sad, self-inflicted blow against the idea of religious principles. It is also a sad, vicious policy begging division and exclusion. But hey, it turns out that exclusionism and faux-elitism are what Scouts are for. Point being, some of these civic organizations get it. Or at least they're trying. Is it the prestige of the label? The brand marque of excellence? The fundamental education? What part of BSA does one have a "right" to? There's a cruel saying about spandex: It's a privilege, not a right. That seems to be the case here. You earn your place in BSA through obedience. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps, but – (extract from AANews) One crucial issue has been whether groups like the Boy Scouts are private organizations, which may have wide latitude in establishing membership criteria, or instead fall under the mantle of "public accommodations" which make them subject to civil rights laws. Critics point out that the BSA often receives sponsorship along with material and even financial aid from local and state governments. The President of the United States is designated as the "honorary chairman" of the organization, and various governmental agencies including the Department of Defense have made extensive resource available to the BSA. That, say the critics, amounts to government-sponsored discrimination. In 1997, Atheist parent Rob Sherman went to court as a plaintiff with his son, Ricky challenging the constitutionality of his local Illinois police department sponsoring a Boy Scouts Explorer post. The suit charged that by allowing the scouts to requiring a religious litmus test for membership, a government agency was sponsoring discrimination, and violating the separation of church and state. Scott Cozza, the president of the “Scouting For All Group” which seeks to bring tolerance into the ranks of the BSA said, "It is ironic that the BSA core value of respecting diversity is not practiced within the organization. And it's a shame that the BSA National Office is turning a deaf ear to its members." Cozza's group is also condemning the threats to dismiss Darrel Lambert. "I think it's horrible that the Boy Scouts of America would kick out Lambert. He is more of an Eagle Scout than many Eagle Scouts who believe in god. Believing in god is not a measure of the quality of a person." Cozza noted that the two murderers of Matthew Shepard, a gay youth, were an Eagle Scout and Mormon. "The character of a person is seen by how a person lives his life," said Cozza. "When will the Boy Scouts of America ever learn that their policy of discrimination is a violation of their own scout oath and law, and hurts kids?"
Tolerance of the intolerant will provide a way out this time While I agree with the consideration, I do think the homosexual decision clears up the status of that, at least. That's why I think the best strategy is to lobby for an end to the funding. And yes, a lawsuit would be effective here, so I'll modify my prior statements. Specifically, though, the lawsuit should not be aimed at BSA. It has been established in the past that they have the right to behave this way. Now, I don't think it's ethically right, but that's the way it goes. So the solution seems to be to let the BSA be what they are, and start tearing apart the funding issue. I've been in stores before where the local proprietor put up a sign in support of BSA. I've made the point of finding a shift manager and telling them that I won't be patronizing their establishment because of it. I don't expect that place to change just because of me. But in the long run? Just maybe? There is government-sponsored discrimination all over the place. I would be worried about South Carolina's theistic electoral laws before I worried about BSA. Think of it this way: by the time the current generation of teenagers are business owners, this will be less problematic. After watching BSA behave badly, I can't imagine people will be in a rush to sign up their kids. I won't go so far as to ask a parent if they would enroll their kid in the KKK, but there is a certain degree of parallel. Let the BSA be as they are. Take it out on the people who support the BSA. As far as I care, if I'm ever hiring, membership in the Boy Scouts of America will serve against[ the candidate. Divisive ideas would drag down my workplace. And that realization is what will cause the most dramatic changes. When people feel discriminated against just for being a Boy Scout they'll have to wonder why. I mean, NAMBLA membership would be enough to make me not hire a guy. In the meantime, Scott Cozza needs to shut up. I really think the Shepard point and the When will the BSA ever learn lament reveal his motivation as covetous. What is so important about being in the BSA? It seems people want the prestige of a label. Well ... shite. Just because we want it doesn't mean we're entitled to it. I remember the "God & Country" bit in Cub Scouts. I stopped going. I didn't like the oaths. I didn't want to take them. Should I have been allowed all my badges and education without accepting the standards of the group? I see it as two issues where I think others see it as one. • BSA can set whatever policies they want • You don't have to join BSA If we look at an organization like BSA and see massive public support and specific "public accommodation", what does that tell you about the people who support BSA? Leave them to fester. In a few years the BSA will be looked upon as if it was the HJ. And then everybody wins. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My mother used to always buy lots of stuff from boy scouts that were fundraising (ie "scoutarama" tickets that she never used, holiday ornaments, etc.), but in light of recent events, she has to the dismay of many young scouts stopped giving (they aren't sad that it's just her, but numbers altogether are down because not as many people wanna sponsor those redneck bastards)
GIL, I think you have it exactly You have hit the nail squarely, GIL Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seriously. That's all it is. It's the reason I say the atheist has no case. To apply the Judo decision: • Virtually any restriction or regulation imposed by a public accommodation could impinge upon a person's religious beliefs because such beliefs ... are of the individual adherent's own making. (Judge Robert Lasnik, US District Court) As absurd as it seems, I know several people who were Boy Scouts who are also atheists. They just recited the oaths. It didn't mean that much to them, but a curious perspective point from me to you: • On the one hand, I approve of the fact that this young man finds his integrity worth enough to him to not sacrifice it for this. • To the other, I find it a very interesting fact that someone who is without belief in God finds it so important. Or someone who does not believe in God. I don't see the conflict from this perspective. God doesn't exist; don't worry about It. In other words, while I do approve according to my personal ethics, I find it very strange objectively that he should react so severely to something that does not exist. But the end point is that the BSA has every right to be as despicable as they choose to be, and there's not much we can do about it except to withhold our support for it. As more and more people find the doctrine of the BSA untenable, they will cease supporting it as you indicate your mother has done. The interesting thing is that it will go too far for BSA at some point. The object of boycott or withholding of support is to effect change. However, if BSA stands on a certain number of principles because of some interpretation of integrity, what will happen when they have to change or go away? Facing collapsing membership and overwhelming rejection in terms of public accommodation, the BSA will either have to change its principles or die away. But if they cross a certain line, and I think they may have, the revocation of integrity will be equally damaging, as vital principles in the BSA will be cheapened. Either way, the BSA may have crossed the line of no return, especially if they win this out as I think they should. This may be enough to start lifting BSA's widespread support, and it may be such a commitment to principle that they cannot ever go back on it. BSA may officially be a dinosaur. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But Tiassa, dozen of state and local governments sponsor the BSA. That's not legal if they exclude gays and Atheists.
He didn't react to God, but rather other people's reactions to his disbelief in a higher power(s), aka God (Thor, Vishnu, JHVH, etc) Did you hear that they gave him a week to choose a deity? lol. If I had his contact info, I'd inform him of Cthulhu. Actually, I wonder what they would think if he worshipped Satan? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If the US constitution guarantees religious freedom, surely that means it guarantees the right to have no religion, yes? The right to not be persecuted for having no religion?
ooh, and although the most common sort of Buddhism is an Atheistic religion (the kind in Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal is not an Atheistic religion), the BSA welcomes Buddhists and actually has some sort of spiritual badge for them... roflmao.
