In Theory: Is the Boy Scouts of America’s religious freedom being threatened?
Robert Gates, national president of the Boy Scouts of America, said last month he believes the organization’s ban on participation by openly gay adults “cannot be sustained” and called for a change to the policy.
In an op-ed published by the Deseret News, Drew Clark suggests that a successful lawsuit challenging the policy is a threat to religious freedom, especially if organizations founded on religious principles cannot set and exercise their membership policies as a result.
Clark writes that much hinges on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on same-sex marriage.
“Threats to our freedoms will come and they will go,” Clark writes. “But our nation will either hold true to 1st Amendment principles of religious freedom and association, or it will force people, religions, everyone — and here I include the Boy Scouts — to adopt standards with which they cannot, in good conscience, agree.”
Q. What do you think of Clark’s opinion and Gates’ acknowledgment that the Boy Scouts’ policy should change? Where is the line between being inclusive and forcing inclusive principles on a group’s sincere — and perhaps conflicting — policies?
David Silverman of American Atheists said it best. “Cloaking your bigotry in religion doesn’t make it any less bigoted and calling you out on your bigotry isn’t persecution, its accountability.” That being said, in this country, religious people and groups are free to practice their dogmatic prejudice within their homes and churches, and I support their freedom to do so.
However, just as the Constitution forbids prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it also forbids government respecting any establishment of religion.
The Boy Scouts are clear that they are a religious institution. The only problem is that, according to Jason Torpy, president of the Military Assn. of Atheists and Freethinkers, “the Boy Scouts enjoy special privileges from the Department of Defense, including funding, facilities, organization, advertising and incentives in hiring for their Eagle Scouts.” Therefore, the government and taxpayer are complicit in any discrimination which, according to the establishment clause, cannot happen. Drew Clark’s op-ed conveniently makes no mention of this.
If they want to operate as a completely private institution without government assistance, they should be free to operate as their religion dictates. In their current state, they must remove any discriminatory requirements based on sexual orientation and belief. I make the same argument for all government subsidized religious institutions.
As far as marriage equality, if the government redefining marriage somehow changes your personal marriage or your personal definition of marriage, you don’t have a problem with the government; either you have a problem with your faith or your relationship, or you may have an issue with your own sexuality.
Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant
Glendale
--
In my opinion, Clark is wrong, and he’s on the wrong side of history. Other countries allow gays to marry, and so will we, eventually, even if this time the Supreme Court says no. In the June edition of Church and State magazine, a journal that is for the separation of church and state, the cover shows a sign at a cafe (hypothetical, of course, and very funny … to me, at least), and that sign says this: “We do not serve Gays, Muslims or Atheists.” Then the last line, complete with a smiley face, says, “Jesus Loves You!”
The point about religious freedom in America is that you are free to believe and worship whatever you want, but you are not free to behave however you want. Get it? Believe anything, but you can’t do everything you want to those who don’t agree with you.
I recently returned from a prep school where I taught almost 50 years ago, and one of the boy students had become a woman. When I met her, she was being talked to cordially by a guy I know to be a conservative Christian. Later I said to my conservative friend, “You have come a long way in what you believe” because he had actually been speaking cordially to a person who had undergone a gender change. He said, “I still believe it’s a sin … but I too am a sinner.”
See, the conservative Christian can still hold onto his belief system, but he has the human decency to treat someone he disagrees with the same respect he would show to anybody else. So go ahead: believe whatever you want. But the greatness that is America will not allow your behavior to exclude someone whose lifestyle you abhor. I think the 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire said it best: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
The pressure that has recently been put on the Boy Scouts of America to kowtow to the homosexual agenda is nothing short of bigoted, insensitive, intolerant bullying. It has gone far beyond this small special interest group freely expressing their sexuality and has become a war waged by them on those who happen to disagree with them. It is a direct attack on the freedom of religion and belief that our Constitution has promised every American citizen and group.
It is neither moral nor permissible for one special interest group to bully a long-standing, positive community service organization like the Boy Scouts of America into changing its core moral values. They may practice their lifestyle as they see fit, but they must leave other people’s children, and the organizations that serve them, alone. In his article Clark refers to “the exercise of religious values inherent in Scouting.” What would be next on the “chopping block” for the Scouts? Will we let them be bullied into practical atheism in addition to a forced doctrinal compromise with what they sincerely believe is immoral? The group attacking the Boy Scouts is no longer fighting for their rights. They are now fighting against the rights of others. The sooner our country wakes up and realize this the better off, and more truly free, our country will be.
In Romans 12:21, Paul the Apostle gave a word of instruction that will serve the Scouts, and us all, a lot of good: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” The Boy Scouts of America should keep up the standard of good values and the excellent service they have been rendering for generations unswayed by those who happen to disagree with them.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
The LDS church hasn’t taken a position on Gates’ recommendation, choosing to wait to see whether the Boy Scouts of America’s national board actually changes its position on gay adult leaders.
Several factors make it difficult to anticipate how, or if, a change in Scouting’s national policy would influence the church’s affiliation with the BSA.
Within LDS troops, adult Scout leadership posts such as Scoutmaster are considered callings issued by the local congregation’s lay clergy. Gay men who faithfully follow church teachings are eligible to be called to serve in local positions as are other faithful members. Also, the church has in recent years made a concerted effort to improve relations with the LGBT community. The outreach has included support of antidiscrimination laws, including a Utah state law signed by the governor in March and a Salt Lake City ordinance approved several years ago.
The Utah antidiscrimination law may provide a model for how society, and individual organizations, can respect the dignity and protect the rights of both the LGBT and religious communities.
The Utah law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace and housing. However, it also includes provisions that prevent religious organizations and individuals from being forced to violate their beliefs. These safeguards were the result of long conversations between church leaders, Utah’s LGBT community and legislators. Long before the legal specifics were discussed, key church leaders and gay activists devoted considerable time to more general discussions about how to improve cooperation and perceptions between their communities. This kind of process is the best, and most positive way, to determine where and when lines should be drawn to accommodate both sides.
The Constitutional protections for freedom of religion and expression are plain. More recent court rulings have extended protections against discrimination to include the LGBT community. As a result, it has become legally and socially untenable to exclude or ignore the rights of one group while upholding those of the other. So, yes, we have to draw lines, but we should do so through respectful negotiation and compromise rather than confrontation.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
--
Atheists too are engaging the question of whether tolerance can go too far. The New York Times editorial section on May 31 included a column entitled “Wanted: A Theology of Atheism.” History professor Molly Worthen broadly covered what atheists, agnostics and other no-god-niks like me are up to nowadays, as our proportion in the U.S. has doubled from just 10 years ago, and also a little about the history of secular humanism in America.
Professor Worthen quotes philosopher, neuroscientist and atheist explainer Sam Harris, who has written “The End of Faith” and numerous other books, worrying that too many secular humanists value what he identified as “tolerance, above all.” Harris says that the “irrational beliefs” of some religions cause great harm “geopolitically and personally” and deserve to be criticized.
I don’t buy the threat to religious liberty that Clark fears with the Boy Scouts officially accepting gay members and leaders. Gates is both correct and savvy to move scouting into the 21st century. Using the excuse that a group is private to condone discrimination doesn’t fly for an organization claiming to foster good citizenship. Their antigay stand was impeding recruitment of a new generation. And of course, gay people have been there in Scouting all along, despite the cruel and ignorant ban.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
I agree unequivocally with Robert Gates that the Boy Scouts needs to remove their ban related to openly gay leaders of the Boy Scouts. I have personal knowledge that there have been many closeted gay leaders for a long time without incident. And they removed the restriction on openly gay boys in their program several years ago. Why should there be a difference for adults?
The idea that this rule is a freedom of speech issue is totally bogus to me. The people who have not had freedom of speech up to now are the gay leaders who have not been allowed to let anyone know about their orientation. And we are not speaking about sexual acts here, just about telling the truth about themselves, something that is central to scouting.
Certainly many of the moral values espoused by the Boy Scouts are related to religious ones, but the Boys Scout organization is not a religious entity. Nor is it correct to say that those who are not affiliated with a religious community do not have the same values. So there is no threat to religious freedom involved here, unless some religious groups somehow conflate religious freedom with doctrinal mandates.
So my hope is that the Boy Scouts will live up to their values and become the inclusive organization they profess to be. They have a great program, and it should be open to all.
Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta
--
Gates writes that the Boy Scouts’ policy is “unsustainable.” I am not sure why he says that, but I think the whole idea of homosexuality is under examination here. The Boy Scouts has instituted procedures to protect the Scouts from becoming victims of unwanted advances by adults of either sex. So it must be some other reason that openly gay adults “bother” the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America and other organizations, both religious and otherwise. I believe the reason for this fear lies with the belief that the Bible speaks of only one type of marriage, as has been quoted, “one man, one woman.” If one truly and carefully reads the Bible, that is not only not the case, but the real case for marriage is to procreate. Mordechai Kaplan, the Jewish Philosopher, once called Judaism, an ongoing civilization. He didn’t go far enough! America and all of humanity are an ongoing civilization. We have evolved to where we have voluntary and committed families made up single parents with children, gay couples with children and heterosexual couples without children. Which of these families fulfills the Biblical code of family and which doesn’t? If the government compels an organization to adhere to its idea of marriage as one man and one woman and we “sustain” our belief in that, fine. But, if we do not adhere to that, and most of us no longer or have never believed in that, then much local, state and federal law must be changed. Just look at the state of Utah, for example.
Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank