Scouting’s status and government’s rights

Your editorial “Scout’s dishonor” (March 15) skirts a serious issue.

In 1998, the Boy Scouts convinced the California Supreme Court that they were a religious organization free to exclude atheists. In 2000, the Scouts convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that they were a private organization, free to discriminate when admitting members. In 2001, the Scouts convinced Congress that they were a public organization entitled to the same right to use public facilities as any other nonprofit.

Depending on the venue and circumstances, the Boy Scouts claim to be a religious, private or public organization. The lesson here is clear: The Boy Scouts’ primary purpose is to teach hypocrisy.

By the way, the Boy Scouts in Britain (where Scouting originated), Canada and many other nations do not discriminate against gays or atheists.

DAVID E. ROSS

Oak Park

*

With the influence of gang activity and controlled substances on our youth, to name a couple of problems that society faces, does the good that the Scouts perform outweigh the crying of the few who are also seeking donations from employers and using the “private entity” clause as a way to sway emotional appeal?

It’s between at-risk children and a few adults who don’t care about the good, yet focus on the political aspects and have no alternative solutions for these youngsters.

I know where the “dishonor” lies, and anyone who takes out their petty frustrations (political and personal) on today’s youngsters, especially for political gain, ought to be tarred and feathered.

STEVEN MOSHLAK

Haymarket, Va.

*

When a leftist city punishes people for being too “conservative,” The Times apparently has no problem. Thus, you defend Berkeley’s discrimination against the Sea Scouts.

The group has been shut out of a city program that lets nonprofits berth at the Berkeley Marina without charge. The Scouts are excluded because City Hall doesn’t like their views.

Berkeley disagrees with Scout requirements that members express a belief in God and reject sexual activity outside marriage. Yet these are constitutionally protected beliefs. By making the Scouts pay, Berkeley is punishing their exercise of 1st Amendment rights.

Whether one agrees with their policies or not, the Scouts are defending the rights of all private, belief-based organizations to follow their principles without being bullied by government.

HAROLD JOHNSON

Sacramento

The writer is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and is representing a member of the Sea Scouts.