Atheist Thrown Out by Boy Scouts

[Daaraa]

I was under the impression in Canada that here the Scouts recive some governemnt money and as such they are required to allow girls, boys, religious or athiests alike and treat everyone as such. Hence Boy Scouts Canada is now called Scouts Canada.

With that in mind I agree with allan. IF the BSA is receiving taxpayers money then what they did is discrimination. IF they are not receiving any government money then what they did was within thier own rules.

 

[allan2]

Last week, the council said it would give him about a week to declare his belief in a higher power. Darrell refused, saying that to lie would make him a bad Scout.

Ironic, that to stay in an organization which promotes being "morally straight", he would have to LIE (i.e. lie given an unwritten understanding that "higher power" means a religious god, which again, isn't stated).

THIS boy is upright. HE knows what being a GOOD Scout means. Talk about cutting off your nose to "save face"....

But again, they're free to do what they will... (IF they don't get tax money).

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

A quick comment on Pillagers "they are free to do as they please" - this is idigging up the "I can refuse to sell burgers to niggers on ym private property" arguement from the Old South!

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
A quick comment on Pillagers "they are free to do as they please" - this is idigging up the "I can refuse to sell burgers to niggers on ym private property" arguement from the Old South!

Why yes it is! Your point being...?

Okay, it's like this: You own your house (or rent access-ownership to your apartment), you decide who can and cannot enter it. You own a space for business, likewise. Same principle of ownership, with the same natural rights (and responsibilities) that entails.

The problem I had with the "Old South" is that state governments often MANDATED that facilities be separate for blacks and whites--i.e. that decision was actually taken away from owners, including some who may have otherwise not bothered to segregate. And likewise, structures OWNED or FUNDED by the government were segregated. What it boils down to: private owner makes the rules, but GOVERNMENT owner must recognize that government belongs to ALL the people in its jurisdiction, so they DO NOT have a similar right to be discriminatory. See the difference?

Now like I said, just about any business who barred people for being black WOULD be found out sooner or later and WOULD be boycotted by a lot of people (and I would be one of them--I've boycotted for FAR less). There would be negative publicity all over the place. Racism DOES have a stigma in this country, and it's not just because of laws. So the only businesses who would escape major fiscal harm by practicing such discrimination would be little "hole in the walls" that never had much business anyway and don't care, places which have a regular clientele that a black person probably wouldn't want to associate with anyway (nor would I want to, for that matter).

Walk into most hole-in-the-wall type places, NOT being a regular, wearing different clothes or not being "their type", and you're not going to have a good time anyway, and you may end up in a brawl. The law really doesn't change much of anything, does it?

Indeed, a bar DOES have a right to throw you out or refuse to serve you (especially if you even just "appear too intoxicated", which can be subjective) at any time. If they throw out a white man, there's not much he can do about it. If they throw out a black man, he can create legal red tape based on (real or not!) "discrimination" charges. So can you see how such laws can actually lead to discrimination the other way? For at root, they are laws based on perceived intent--i.e. laws that undermine the very concept of "rule of law". Not everyone IS equal under such laws.

I know, we all hate racism, me too, it's just that there is a RIGHT WAY of handling it, and this ain't it.

 

[Steve Winer]

boo!!! there are nothing wrong with atheists. I, for one, am not an atheist, but if he has a good commitment and does all he can for his troop and has not caused any trouble, he should not have been thrown out. I am in Boy Scouts of America, and there are some kids who seem atheist (aka "gothic") and there are nothing wrong with them.

 

[EdwardTking]

Umm - "a higher power" could be anything from George Bush II to the chief scout or the 7 ft tall scout master with sledge hammer.

IMHO not believing in a higher power is a little arrogant.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by allan2


Why yes it is! Your point being...?

Okay, it's like this: You own your house (or rent access-ownership to your apartment), you decide who can and cannot enter it. You own a space for business, likewise. Same principle of ownership, with the same natural rights (and responsibilities) that entails.

The problem I had with the "Old South" is that state governments often MANDATED that facilities be separate for blacks and whites--i.e. that decision was actually taken away from owners, including some who may have otherwise not bothered to segregate. And likewise, structures OWNED or FUNDED by the government were segregated. What it boils down to: private owner makes the rules, but GOVERNMENT owner must recognize that government belongs to ALL the people in its jurisdiction, so they DO NOT have a similar right to be discriminatory. See the difference?

Yup, that sums it up for me.

I don't see the left kicking up a fuss about Black Societies, or Societies for Acacia Avenue Asians.

If the Scouts cannot limit their membership, then neither should anyone else by your criteria.

What if I wanted to join the Black Police Officers Association? I'm not black, hence I cannot join. That is equally discrimination. I don't see the difference.

 

[ejday]

Hm. I was a Scout for a while...
I think the great irony is that Darrell Lambert is holding to the Scout ideals better than the Chief Seattle Council. I think it's atrocious what BSA is doing to him, but it is a private organization and I think the BSA has the right to make themselves look like jackasses if they so desire. If anything, he should wear this judgment as a badge of honor.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Pillager, allan2: good point about many people taking a rong and turning it around instead of eliminatiing it.

Still, how can you, allan2, be so naive to believe a racist business would NOT flourish - hav you NEVER walked an American street???????

Still, the point is that they do NOT call themselves a Christian group, but a Boy Scout group. If they'd written "Do you believ in God?" it would be better, but believeing in a higher being???? Wuite obviously they do NOT want to advertise the fact that they ARE demented Christians! (demented because they completely misunderstand what Christianity is about, btw).


If a restaurant owner writes "Restaurant" over the door - he has to let people in. If he writes "Rednecks Only - right wing nuts club (food served)" that's something different!

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Pillager, allan2: good point about many people taking a rong and turning it around instead of eliminatiing it.

Still, how can you, allan2, be so naive to believe a racist business would NOT flourish - hav you NEVER walked an American street???????

The question is, would a black person (or a white person, if it were "blacks only") WANT to go in there? Why would you want to associate (or give your money to) people who obviously don't want anything to do with you?

But yes, in the city *I* live in, if the local Chili's decided to serve "whites only" (or "blacks only"), the media would be all over it, every left-leaner and MANY right-wingers wouldn't want to be caught DEAD in there, and business would suffer. It wouldn't even matter if some of these boycotters were themselves "closet racists"--just keeping appearances would be enough reason to stay away. Like I said, racism carries a LOT of stigma, especially when it becomes widely publicised--which it would, think about it. The only place no one would care about would be Ma and Pa's Local Sh*thole, where no one but the regulars (who are probably all one color anyway) ever bother to patronize, and no one else knows or cares about them.

Still, the point is that they do NOT call themselves a Christian group, but a Boy Scout group. If they'd written "Do you believ in God?" it would be better, but believeing in a higher being???? Wuite obviously they do NOT want to advertise the fact that they ARE demented Christians! (demented because they completely misunderstand what Christianity is about, btw).

Which I pointed out, as my OPINION that they shouldn't throw him out. But a free association of people needs NO reason to exclude anyone they want to. Do *I* go telling YOU who you should hang out with? Of course not.

If a restaurant owner writes "Restaurant" over the door - he has to let people in. If he writes "Rednecks Only - right wing nuts club (food served)" that's something different!

Since when does "restaurant" impart the meaning that "all are welcome"? Does it also mean you are welcome if you don't have shoes or a shirt or haven't bathed for a week?

And if it's called "Al's Restaurant", doesn't it mean that AL can decide who goes in there, just like "Al's house" implies the same discretionary power?

Of course, whatever hard-and-fast criteria are required for entrance SHOULD be posted on the door, just to be practical, I suppose.

 

[gr8ful wes]

Sucks to be him

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

allan2: i understand your points (and I envy you your optimism - i just cannot help feeling different, especially knowing both Germany 8and its history) and the US) but I still have to disagree on the property rights issue.

(my English vocabulary leaves me here, I'll have to get back to this when I have a dictionary) color and race are not characteristics like body odor or clothing style. They are harmless, non-offensive (sorry, am missing the right word here) so it is not acceptable to discriminate against people with these characteristics (and this includes whites!) in public.

Your private home is your own matter, but if you own a public restaurant or so you are in public - period!

Go read up the relevant chapter(s) in Colin powell biography - he is way better with words than I am!



btw, i do not think you or pillager are in any way like that, and I respect that you defend your understanding of your constitution!

 

[Perfection]

IMHO the BSA is stabbing itself in the back, by creating all this controversy its losing its appeal as a place to teach morality, lets hope that it will soon correct its descriminatory behavior.

 

[Father Time]

I myself was a boy scount until a coupla years ago.
Though I think it is very sad to see them do this, and I myself even question the value of this whole event they are causing, but they are a private organization, and can do as they wish. And if they say they must believe a higher power anyway on the application, they probably should pay attention to that. ^^; I still think this is kinda ridiculous though.

 

[Grey Knight]

Private clubs do have the right to set their own membership rules, whatever they may be. Where discrimation law comes into play is when something is open to the public - i.e. Chili's. There are legal tests to ensure that an establishment that is effectively public is not allowed to hide behind "private" status.

One of the most important tests is enforcement -- if a "private" organization does not enforce it's own membership rules, it looses private status. In other words, if the BSA did not enforce it's membership rules, it would loose the right to set those rules.

The BSA is a Christian organization. This is not the first time there has been flak about this! Current sentimate in this USA means that the majority will support the BSA, and deride the unbeliever.

Cheers,
Shawn
(An antheist)

 

[VoodooAce]

You know what? I say fine.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization. If they want to discriminate against people that don't conform to 'their' norm, then fine, don't let them in.

But everyone else should do as California and some other states have done. Up and down the state the Boy Scouts have had their free use of public institutions revoked. Now they are no longer eligible to recieve public $$ at all. GOOD!

I know none of MY tax dollars better be getting to the Jr. KKK.

You can be private and fund yourself completely. Or you can be inclusionary and recieve public grants and use of public lands and buildings.

But you can't have it both ways. Personally, as a Boy Scout when I was a lad, I am still very glad to see them getting the shut out here. My son began talking about Boy Scouts around a year ago and I put a quick end to THAT.

 

[VoodooAce]

BTW, a few years ago, before they really began to push their discriminatory practices, I was looking forward to getting my boy into the Scouts.

Now, as I said above, I've forbidden it. And he understands, not being too sure if he believs in God or not. Once I sat him down and explained to him their practices he agreed and decided the Scouts weren't for him anyway.

He does things now like Jr. Forrest Rangers over last summer. And there are plenty of other activities, like basketball now and baseball in a few months. God, I hope THEY don't start requiring him to believe in God.

 

[amadeus]

The Jr. Ku Klux Klan?

The liberal double standard is at it again. Any Christian organization must be a group of right-wing bigots, but any minority-exclusive group is just preserving their culture, right?

 

[God]

Are people's tax money going to minority-exculusive groups?

 

[amadeus]

If they are, they shouldn't be.

If the Boy Scouts is, they shouldn't be, either. We've got too many subsidized social programs. Cut spending.