Hacker News Reader

Comment by russellbeattie | Hacker News Reader

Boy Scouts of America is a discriminatory religious organization with a ridiculously long record of exclusionary policies [1]. They don't "welcome" gay scouts, but permit them. Atheists still aren't allowed to be scout leaders. As a parent I refused to let my son have anything to do with them.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_member...

View on HN

I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see. If you have a private organization and want to give good experiences to young men, then I think you should be able to do so. Someone else can make another organization for young women, or even one for both, each of these provides a unique experience for those who want it, and in a pluralistic society this kind of diversity enriches society for everyone. Look at it more as diversity. Atheists can make their own camps which promote their own ideas and ethics, and it will be a haven for good memories among them. It isn't good to homogenize all of society and attack those who just want their own little "safe haven" and "summer camps" for their children and their cultural ideas without bothering anyone else. I fully support your right to put your son wherever you want, just please support my right to do the same.

>distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimination"

These are not linked, they are independent and orthogonal. The first is a matter of legal ability, the latter is a moral issue (that may under some circumstances also be illegal). There are many, many instances in life where you have the legal right to do something that is nonetheless despicable, and it is social consequences that moderate it (or not). russellbeattie did not say the Boy Scouts were criminals or should be banned, merely that they are discriminatory. And they are. They apparently have the freedom to be discriminatory, but private citizens may still judge them for that choice. Refusing to have one's child be involved which an organization that does that is a completely legitimate social and moral judgement as a parent. Debating and socially pushing back against evil is a critical part of society and reason free speech and association.

Err, sure, I support freedom of choice and opposing evil, but calling someone evil for deciding to send their son to a boy's only summer camp seems a bit extreme to me. Civil society also depends on people being tolerant of those they disagree with and practicing kindness and persuasion when they do disagree. Sure, there are things that we set strict laws against and things we oppose morally whether they are legal or not (e.g. murder, mass murder, oppressive surveillance), but which summer camps you decide to sponsor or go to don't seem to me to be part of that list. Maybe I'm just out of touch with society...

Both of your comments are arguing against strawmen. You're the only one calling them evil. You're also the only one talking about the boys-only aspect of it when it's clear that the problems the other commenters have with it are that it discriminates against atheists and homosexuals. Do better.

The Boy Scouts of America has a congressional charter. They are not a run-of-the-mill private organization. Their discrimination is unacceptable as a publicly-chartered organization.

Does that mean anything or is it just honorific like most recognition of groups from the government? I think it's quite well established the Boy Scouts of America are a well recognized group regardless of this so I don't see how this is what makes them non run-of-the-mill.

The Boy Scouts have used the trademark rights granted by their federal charter to bully other organizations to change their names. In a trademark dispute it would be necessary for a claimant to demonstrate that there is a likelihood of confusion between their mark and the allegedly infringing mark. The BSA has claimed that their federal charter allows them to be exempt from that requirement and, in the 2008 Wrenn vs. BSA decision the court affirmed that claim, stating "The Court agrees with the BSA that it need not demonstrate the likelihood of confusion because it has been granted special protection by Congressional charter."

That is sufficient demonstration, to me, that they derive value from their federal charter above and beyond it simply being an honorific.

One of the problems with our society is that the government has it's hand and it's funding in almost everything. I don't think public institutions should take sides, which means they should get out of interfering with private institutions. If the government didn't take a large percentage of our money to hand out to organizations we disagree with, then maybe we could support the things we do agree with. I wish they didn't have a congressional charter, maybe then they'd be more independent.

Your libertarian-leaning sentiments don't change the facts. The Boy Scouts of America have a congressional charter. They've used that charter to bully other programs into changing their names (evidence "Youthscouts"[1] or "Hacker Scouts"[2]).

If they're going to use the imprimatur of the United States Congress to their advantage then it follows, to me, that they aren't a run-of-the-mill private organization and should be bound by the Constitution in the same way as other public entities. (Their discrimination against atheists, for example, is directly in conflict with the first amendment and, to my mind, unconscionable.)

I'm glad to see the Girl Scouts (also federally chartered) going after them. The Girl Scouts have a much better track record of being a good actor when it comes to discrimination and acting like the public entity that they are.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America

[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-sco...

BTW: If you find this kind of thing interesting there's some really engaging analysis here: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64622/OSLJ_V53N5_13...

Substitute any other minority for Athiest in your sentence to explore your underestimation of the extent of discrimination you’re advocating.

We're not talking about discriminating against girls, but against atheists and LGBT people.

> I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see

By all means try to distinguish between them. You haven't yet done so.

"freedom to act as you see fit" is usually a human right guaranteed legally by the Constitution, but discrimination is a cultural idea which is slowly gaining the power of legal force to prevent people from doing what they would normally choose. To be "discriminating" used to be a compliment, it meant you could intellectualy discern the logical differences between two things, much like how we use "observative". But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group". They are indeed, diametrically opposed in that sense. If it is only a cultural or social opposition to someone's choices, then sure it could be a good thing, but it is becoming more and more a legal construct to oppose a person's freedom to act as they see fit if you think they are being unfair.

> But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group".

Your definition of discrimination in the second sense (which is actually listed first in the dictionary) is off. Let's consult that:

"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

It goes a lot further than merely making disagreeable choices or being unfair.

You're aware that they now allow gay members and leaders and that the atheism thing is on it's way out, right? I'm an atheist eagle scout. I'll grant you that it has been tough to get these changes in, but they are clearly happening.

The organization's recent reaffirmation of the "Duty of God" doesn't make me think the "atheism thing" is at all on the "way out": https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/05/31/bsa-reaffirms-d...

Where I am, in semi-rural Ohio, I think an openly atheist person would have a very tough time being accepted.

Well, as an eagle scout who has influence in this (they actually listen to their eagle scouts), I know many of us have been pushing for a wider view of what is meant for spirituality to include atheists, just like we pushed to allow in gay scout leaders and scouts, and we pushed to open the program to women.

They need to take out the "spirituality" aspect of it, full stop. Atheists by and large aren't "spiritual" for any meaningful definition of the word, and pretending that they are won't actually make atheists feel more welcome.

I was told that I would be allowed to stay part of the troop but would not be able to advance on rank any further due to being an athiest, and the people who made that decision are still involved with the organization.

Parts of the boy scouts may have moved on, but it is by no means an official change

>They don't "welcome" gay scouts, but permit them.

They don't "welcome" heterosexual scouts, it's a children's organization... sex and sexual orientation have nothing to do with it and should never have anything to do with it given we are talking about MINORS, a good chunk of which are pre-pubescent.

Scouts range ~12 up to 18. Cub scouts are pre-pubescent and also a different organization.

Adults should have nothing to do with sexuality then, but it's definitely there for the scouts. The discussions in my troop were very much "keep that away from here" which is a correct attitude coming from 40+ year olds who aren't family.

As an Eagle Scout I'll say that I'm not a huge fan of the BSA organization, but wholeheartedly support local troops. Not every troop is good, to be sure, but I don't think dismissing the whole of Boy Scouts is appropriate.

I loved my time in the Boy Scouts. The organization doesn't matter if you find a troop with a good leader.

I was in scouting for many years.

Why should they welcome anyone? I was permitted to join, onboarded, etc. Anyone else who joined was given the same treatment. The red carpet wasn't rolled out for anyone.

It's religious only in a vague way. There was a religious requirement to get Eagle, but aside from that, my troop wasn't religious.

My father wasn't religious and he was a scoutmaster.

You sound like someone who has made a judgement based on what some people have chosen to highlight. With the same kind of attitude you might think you are in grave danger of getting killed at any moment in America (if you base your opinion on the US on naysayers).

Certainly if what some higher ups decide about an org matters to you the most, you shouldn't join. Trump was elected president and lots of liberals found enough reason to still love America.

In all seriousness, I learned a lot there. There are other orgs that can accomplish the same. You wouldn't believe how many people I run into today who can't even tie a couple of knots.

As is every club with any kind of charter. The DAR; the sports teams at my local high school; heck even girl's schools like Wellsley.

And the religious component is contained in "adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom"

Its about teaching young people to respect spirituality, to accept loyalty in Scouts to their own faith. I can't see harm in this. Perhaps an Atheist, dogmatically demanding that we all give up faith, could see harm?

So which faith should I be loyal to please if I have none? And which universal „spiritual principles“ exist in the world that I could adhere to, except for „whatever my religious leader says“ (of which I don‘t have any)?

There‘s simply no logic in these sentences, which points back again to the boy scouts being a de facto religious organization.

I was in Scouts for a couple of years. Religion was not really a focus at all. The message was that we should respect each others choices with regard to religion and spirituality and that was about it. Morals, good citizenship, and respect were otherwise discussed without much reference to religion.

I was in Scouts, too, and I had a similar experience to you. That doesn't change the fact that organization has weighed-in on matters of religion[1] and affirmed themselves as being discriminatory toward atheists.

[1] - https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/05/31/bsa-reaffirms-d...

It depends on the troop. I was in the Cub Scouts in Takoma Park, MD (which is where the hippies went who never stopped being hippies), and indeed religion was not a focus there. But in troops elsewhere, it definitely can be. And those troops are being given cover and explicit endorsement to do so by the national organization. Whereas if, say, a local dance class started injecting religion and making some people feel uncomfortable because it's not their religion, the national organization might step in and shut that all down, saying stick to dance instruction and leave religion in church.

One of my sons was in scouts for a few years. Every scout meeting and event was started with a prayer that everyone was expected to bow their heads for and say amen. Talks often referenced strictly religious themes, with frequent mentions of the Judeo-Christian god. It felt like religion was very much a focus of the local troop.

>I was in Scouts for a couple of years. Religion was not really a focus at all.

Same. Aside from having a Jehova's Witness as a scoutmaster (that never once brought up religion, in fact my family and that family were the only non-holiday church-going families in my dens and packs), there was absolutely nothing religious about my time from tiger cubs up to my father dying just shy of my 13th birthday and me leaving scouts.

Chiming in just to offer some counter anecdata to what seems to be on display in this thread: I was edged out of my local scout troop for being an atheist. This was roughly around 1996-1997 though, so perhaps things have improved.

Most young people do grow up in some spiritual environment, at least in America. And all Scouts are required to respect others' faith.

I call straw man - what specific problem is being referred to? An imaginary youth raised in a cave?

Citation please. America has very diverse pockets. There's places where the average person wouldn't dream of missing church weekly, and there's others where people have never seen the inside of one.

Stating that "most young people" grow up in a spiritual environment means that a kid who isn't spiritual must have been raised in a cave is disengenous

Try google in general? Something between 80 and 90% of Americans for instance identify with some faith.

Yea, looks like 20% of americans have no religious identity[1]. That leads to roughly 69 million people. How does a population that large of non-religious people lead you to believe that a non religious child would have to be imaginary and raised in a cave?

[1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/224642/2017-update-americans-re...

Meanwhile, in Canada: http://wiki.scouts.ca/en/Sexuality

...which goes to show that you can run a chartered organization, even one otherwise substantially similar in content and procedure to BSA, without being discriminatory about it.

Same goes for religious organizations: several Christian denominations allow openly gay ministers. There's nothing about spirituality that requires we discriminate against or hate each other.

IMHO, we can and should expect better of organizations than to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, especially those organizations that purport to model good behavior for youth.

The BSA now allows openly gay members and leaders. It took a while to get there, but it happened.

>> "Perhaps an Atheist, dogmatically demanding that we all give up faith, could see harm?"

You've confused atheist with antitheist. The former is a personal lens on the world. The latter is an ideology. I look up at the stars and see balls of incandescent gas and an indifferent cosmos, but that doesn't mean I berate the witches I know for finding significance in their alignment.

It's not so simple as that. Atheists don't demand people to give up faith, but we try raise critical thinking in people so that their actions are guided by fact and evidence instead of blind adoration and faith. Teaching kids to blindly follow things instead of teaching them to think critically can be very harmful in the long run.

Teaching kids respect is a positive thing. Teaching kids not to steal or lie, likewise.

Agreed. And one can have those things without religion.

Teaching kids to blindly accept matters that are unfalsifiable, doesn't seem like a positive thing. Acting as an example to kids by being discriminatory toward those who do not blindly accept the unfalsifiable doesn't seem like a positive thing either.

Edit: minor phrasing

Teaching kids respect for other's views on the subject of faith

If by respect you mean tolerance, I agree. But I cannot respect, for example, those that believe (as per Leviticus) practicing homosexuals should be put to death.

Not a lot of them in my Troop

You really should not generalize about athiests. I'm an atheist and I see no special athiesm-based reason to do anything. I promote critical thinking, but that isn't because I'm an atheist. That's because I'm a litterate human being.

> They don't "welcome" gay scouts, but permit them.

This information is outdated.

They had "don't ask, don't tell" for a very long time.

But they've had openly gay Scouts since 2014 and openly gay leaders since 2015.

That's odd to read. The scouts are very different in the UK. They have an explicit "Open to all" policy. I know several scout leaders who are gay, plenty who are women, and I believe they've removed the mention of god from the pledge.

The BSA is a large and diverse organization. There are many troops out there and each one is a world unto itself. It takes some time to find a good fit for your child, but it is very much worth the efforts.

Many troops and councils have openly bucked National's policies for a while now [0] [1] [2] with varying repercussions. Like any large bureaucratic group of people, change takes time. But I think you can see that change is happening within the BSA. I think that you would be surprised at the inclusiveness of some troops (not all, by any means). Importantly, if you want the scouts to change, doing so from inside the organization is the most expedient way to do so (frustrations are bound to occur though).

Please, give Scouts a try! Interview local scoutmasters and attend some troop meetings. I promise that they will be happy to talk with you. If you are in the Bay Area I know of a few troops that may fit your family well. I think you will find a troop that aligns fairly well with your priorities (nothing is ever 100%). If that fails, please consider starting your own troop! [3].

Scouting is a great opportunity for young people. It's a fantastic 'grit' builder, leadership trainer, and social experience. It teaches uncountable lessons to your children and helps them prepare for later life like no other thing [4]. Many people [5] cite their one-of-a-kind scouting experiences as the nucleus of their future careers and passions. Personally, I cannot wait to see what becomes of the first female Eagle. Whomever that young woman will be, I am certain that she will have a unique place in her community and world.

The lessons of Scouts are uncountable, the friends are innumerable, and the food is, well, usually inedible.

[0] https://www.glaad.org/blog/local-boy-scouts-council-approves...

[1] http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/store.html

[2] https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/27/16049924/boy-scou...

[3] http://www.bsa-grc.org/membership/how-to-start-a-new-unit/54...

[4] https://www.scouting.org/discover/parent/benefits/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts

Reply on news.ycombinator.com