Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...
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
I didn't know this fact and it makes me even prouder of the Scouts I know, including my son who just joined a "trekker troop" because he thought the traditional troops in the area were just a little to soft for his tastes...
a little to soft for his tastes
That just didn't come out right...no wait
Their activites just weren't what interested him!!(smacking head against cubical wall....)
I can tell you for a fact they are treated as "public" organization and are given accomodations paid for by tax dollars.
Any private group has the right to discriminate against the Scouts. No goobermint has the right to discriminate against anybody.
And I'm sure an openly proselytizing fire-and-brimstone preacher would be welcomed with open arms, right?
You are saying that a POLITICAL group is tax subsidized? I find that hard to believe.
C'mon now, if we're going to stretch "public accomodation" and let Berkely slap down the Scouts, we need to go all the way.
The GLBT has speakers at PUBLIC events. They are given space at PUBLIC rallies and meetings. If I remember right, they meet in a PUBLIC building.
None of these do I object to - except as what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Berkely should leave the Boy Scouts alone and quit playing leftist politics with children.
Well, at least they can't discriminate against constitutionally protected expression.
Just as much as allowing the Scouts access to moorage is NOT subsidy. (Goose and gander.)
Berkeley is legally and ethically enforcing its own policy.
Currently legally, yes. As far as ethically, no way. That's what we're discussing.
Sorry, harassing the Boy Scouts because they don't admit avowed homosexuals or people who don't believe in God is unethical.
Berkely could (and they often do) enact any silly ass policy they want - that does not make it moral or ethical.
BTW, if your logic is correct, the Scouts should have to admit folks into bestiality or necrophilia or sado-masochism or any other "preference", shouldn't they? And they should also have to accept me, an agnostic, to lead religious observances on campouts, right?
Obviously not.
Berkely is restricting access to public facilities from this group because it's currently politically incorrect to treat homosexuals as anything other than another protected "minority", and the BSA does not subscribe to that politically correct viewpoint. They have excellent reasons for doing so.
Because the Berkely city council is notoriously leftist, it was virtually inevitable that they would seek to harass the BSA over their policy. I fully expect them to employ further punitive measures should the BSA ever eschew bestiality or sado-masochism.
Their policy can be called nothing other than harassment.
I can't say whether or not it's Constitutional. It is currently legal. It's also immoral and unethical, unless we want to give the words "moral" and "ethical" entirely new meanings. I also see it as mean-spirited, petty and anti-family.
They should treat all non-profits alike. Passing a rule obviously aimed at the core beliefs of ONE non-profit is not treating them all alike, no matter how often you say it is.
(Signing off for a bit.)
No, you're just saying that unless they admit gays they should be treated differently by government - - and charged to use things that other groups may use without charge. Saying that it doesn't violate their rights to be discriminatorilty charged to use facilities is like saying that poll taxes don't violate a voter's right - because he can still vote as long as he pays the poll tax. Or maybe you think poll taxes for people you don't agree with would be fine and dandy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.