AZMike

le Voyager suggested a self-imposed penalty and I am intrigued but SSScout just made a comparison of religion to the hokey pokey. I guess I did ask for some help with a sense of humor and I really appreciate it, guys. OTOH, this might also be a violation of #3. This is getting complicated.

 

And as much as I would like to overlook another comment, I can't....the comment about Scientology. I'm still smarting over the spanking Beavah gave me for using the 'M' word. So even though there may not be a single Scientologist in all of scouting (and I have no idea, really) you can't make disparaging comments like that in this thread. There are other threads in this forum where you can probably get away with it. And remember, the hokey pokey isn't the worst that can happen.

What did I say that was disparaging about Scientology, packsaddle?

 

Mike, if I may - I'll have to disagree as you're comparing an established religion with over 350 million followers, one that is older then Christianity with a UFO cult that has a membership of less then 60 000!

Other then Tom Cruise, can you cite anything of merit that Scientology has contributed on the world state?

 

Pack - sorry, I've always been a rule breaker. Maybe I should report to the Hokey Pokey Center and turn myself around, hey....

No comparison was intended between the relative merits of Buddhism and L. Ron Hubbard's group. I'm not speaking up for them (or the Satanists, for that matter), just pointing out that other practices that self-identify as religiions don't believe in God, or as many Buddhists do, don't consider the issue relevant. The issue I raised was not whether Scientology has merit.

I have great respect for those who follow the Eight-Fold Path, which is rigorous. I can't agree that Jesus borrowed anything from Buddhism, or that his teachings were not rooted in Judaism, and most serious scholars would agree.

There are a lot of other comments, pro and con, worth reading.

Should this issue concern you if you are not a member of the judiciary?

Clearly, yes.

Many of us are quite open in our professions and careers about our association with the BSA. That was never a cause for concern before, but could be in the future, as BSA membership could cause you to be professionally blacklisted, as some in positions of power are increasingly using their positions as gatekeepers to marginalize you for your choices in the organizations you choose to support, in support of their own social goals.

COMMENT:

I am an attorney living and licensed to practice in California for many years and have looked forward to someday being appointed to serve in the state or federal judiciary in this great State. I am unable to provide my real name in connection with this comment because of the inevitable retaliation that would result against me. I respectfully disagree with the Proposed Amendments to Canon 2C of the Code of Judicial Ethics (“the Codeâ€Â) submitted by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics (“the Committeeâ€Â) on these grounds:

1. The Committee fails to provide supporting evidence to demonstrate that the current version of the Code has failed to accomplish its intended purposeâ€â€for example, evidence that a judge’s service in a youth organization caused an actual or credible perception of bias to taint her decisions. Nor has the Committee provided any evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that actual bias or credible perceptions of bias will taint the credibility of the judiciary if the proposed changes are not made.

2. The Committee fails to provide supporting evidence to demonstrate that the proposed changes will have any appreciable effect on eliminating any bias or perception of bias in the judiciaryâ€â€for example, evidence that by renouncing her membership in a youth organization, a judge’s actual bias or a litigant’s perception of her bias would be eliminated in light of her past membership in such an organization.

3. In this unique context of amending the Code to eliminate the prior exception, the proposed changes would cast an unconstitutional shadow over a current judge or any candidate for judicial office that previously volunteered with a youth organization.

4. While the Committee recognizes “that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected,†the proposed changes fail to recognize that active participation in a particular youth organization is often a vehicle of religious expression and worship, such as where a Boy Scout troop is sponsored by a local church and where that troop functions as a vehicle for the religious worship of the youth and leaders in that troop. In such cases, religious activity is inextricably intertwined with membership in a youth organization. Consequently, the proposed changes shouldâ€â€at a minimumâ€â€be amended to recognize that membership in a youth organization would not violate the Code where such membership is intertwined with membership in a religious organization.

5. The Committee fails to explain why other, less restrictive, amendments to the Code would not be adequate to remedy the purported problem. For example, in a case where membership in the Boy Scouts may reasonably be perceived to create a conflict of interest or bias, a judge could remedy the problem simply by recusal. Why must the entire judiciary be purged of those who volunteer their time and efforts in a youth organization whose official oath requires its members “to help other people at all times,†whose motto is to “be prepared,†and whose slogan is to “do a good turn daily?â€Â

It's getting heated.

Here are the proposed changes from the California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SP14-02.pdf

As the Boy Scouts were declared to be a "religious organization" in a federal court decision in California brought by the ACLU, it would certainly give dissenting judges maneuver room.

It's also interesting that the proposed changes include "eliminating the military organization exception because the U.S. military no longer restricts military service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual personnel" - the military does continue to exclude transexuals from military service, so I don't know how that slipped by the Guardians of the New Public Morality. Machts nicht to me, though.

More interesting are the comments, pro and con, from the community as published in the Daily Journal, a California law journal: http://www.dailyjournal.com/DJEditor...ttachments.pdf

Some of the more interesting comments include:

COMMENT:

I respectfully oppose the proposed changes known as SP14-02 that would require California judicial officers to renounce membership or affiliation in the Boy Scouts of America. Ensuring that judges do not discriminate from the bench is imperative to assuring the fair and equitable justice, but rooting out judges based on extra-judicial affiliations such as the Boy Scouts in a judge’s private life goes too far and penalizes the right to freedom of association, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech. Judges of integrity can be capable of performing their official duties with impartiality notwithstanding their membership the Boy Scouts. The rules permit judges to be members of traditional churches that hold views similar to the Boy Scouts, and rightly so given the First Amendment guarantees of free exercise. Those same guarantees permit judicial officers to be members of youth organizations that, for religiously motivated reasons, hold similar views regarding the practice of homosexuality. There is no compelling or even rational basis to justify an attack on a judicial officer's First Amendment rights to freedom of association, speech, and free exercise of religion associated with membership in the Boy Scouts. I urge that this proposed rule be rejected.

COMMENT:

I am a practicing attorney and a parent of a Cub Scout. I oppose your proposed ban on judges holding membership in Boy Scouts of America for the reasons stated below.

The rationale language under the "Discussion" section of the proposed ban, Section 1B, is disingenuous and untrue. "Eliminating the exception would not have any effect on a judge's family member who could still join or continue to be members of the BSA" is incorrect. A parent (judge or otherwise) is required to participate in Cub Scouts (i.e. mandatory to be present at all functions), and is expected as the child ages into Boy Scouts activities. The parent is expected to attend events, camping, weekly/monthly sessions, and assist the other leaders in weekly and monthly presentations and activities to help all the scouts earn their badges. When the child is at Boy Scouts level, the mothers are no longer able to participate and it is only the fathers, or other male family member, who can participate with the scout. Many judges are Eagle Scouts, or have otherwise participated in the meaningful BSA programs when they were youths. They wish to share the same experience with their sons. I disagree that the ban would allow "other family members to participate" because mothers, sisters, aunts, and family pets are not able to do so. Since the majority of judges in California are male, this adversely affects the male judges who serve on the bench.

The statement made in the Summary of the proposed rule change states that the "committee proposed retaining the exception for religious organizations", however the BSA is a faith-based youth organization. One of the 12 Core Values for Cub Scouts is "Faith-Having inner strength and confidence based on our trust in God". This means that families participate with BSA because of the non-denominational religious practices that are supported in BSA activities. The religious practices include prayers at meetings, Scout oaths and promises which include references to God, celebration of holidays with other members based on the religious beliefs (not commercially accepted practices), and practicing Biblical principles. Banning judges from participating in BSA does restrict a judge from allowing his or her child from participating in a faith-based organization so it does limit a judge and the judge's family from exercising their religious freedom and right to assemble.

If parents do not want to belong to a group that supports inter-faith beliefs, there are plenty of other secular groups to which they and their families can belong. Some examples are AYSO (soccer groups), youth sports teams, and so forth. Parents pick BSA because of its beliefs, not in spite of them. Parents and their children are prohibited from expressing their religious beliefs in most other organizations, including public schools and secular affiliations, but the religious beliefs are a part of BSA and all activities.

The sacrifices the public asks of its judges are many, including safety risks, limiting their First Amendment rights as it relates expressing their opinions, financial sacrifices by giving up private practice, and so forth. The proposed BSA ban, however, goes too far, and unconstitutionally limits not only the judge, but also the judge's son in the son's choice of groups with whom he

may associate. It is hard to believe that when a judge takes an oath of public loyalty that he or she intended to limit, rather than to expand, the opportunities for his or her sons.

The argument that "...prohibiting judges from being members of or playing a leadership role in the BSA would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary" is unsupported. It is expected that if a case arose before a judge that involved BSA that a judge would disclose the conflict of his membership and/or disqualify himself if the facts required such disqualification. It is insulting to imply that a judge's membership in BSA prevents a judge from hearing any matter having anything to do with sexual orientation.

In conclusion, I oppose your ban on judges holding membership in BSA."

(This poster noted the disproportionate impact this would have on Mormon judges, who do not have the option NOT to have their sons participate in Scouts - something that hadn't occurred to me: )

COMMENT:

1. Many of the judicial officers and potential judicial officers participate in the BSA in connection with the religious organizations in which they are members, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. Participation is done by calling or assignment by church leaders. It is generally accepted that such a "call" is by divine direction and rejection of such a calling would not be appropriate. To place enact this change would substantially impact and impinge on the religious freedoms and rights of such individuals.

2. By enactment of this modification the California bench will not have the type of diversity to which it has aspired and which is beneficial to the bench and public. As the Canon's now stand any judicial officer is under obligation to recuse in a case in which their impartiality may be questioned. That is sufficient balance and maintains the integrity of the judiciary. To go further, damages the judiciary by effectively eliminating a group of now sitting and prospective jurists who, in most cases have added significant diversity and value to the bench. Certainly Vaughn Walker was not required to recuse himself. There should be sufficient room for those who privately may hold moral and religious views relative to these very important sensitive topics

Another poster also noted this. It would seem to be a case of religious discrimination against LDS members.

I strongly oppose a universal disqualification of judges on the basis of membership or leadership in the Boy Scouts of America.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have served in multiple leadership positions in the BSA in connection with my church membership. The BSA is an integral part of the LDS church's youth program for boys aged 7 through 18. Members of the church are sometimes assigned (as I was) by their religious leaders to serve in positions of BSA leadership. This participation is regarded as religious church service.

Provisions of the canon appropriately exempts membership in religious organizations as constitutionally protected. I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment to Canon 2.C should be accepted as to judges whose participation in the BSA stems from their religious practice which is constitutionally protected. Thus, I urge the Court to adopt an exception applicable to judges whose participation in the BSA is pursuant their religious practice.

Thank you for your consideration of this comment.

 

As Buddhists we don't pray to any god or gods. Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology.

No, it's not unique. Scientologists also describe themselves as a religion but do not believe in God. Laveyan Satanists would describe themselves the same way.

Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it.

 

However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic (although it has much in common with them). Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion of God. It is principally concerned with developing a method of transcending from the worldly ills. This involves undertaking a method of mental discipline and a code of conduct which is sufficient to satisfy the most demanding of spiritual requirements. Indeed only very little of the Buddha's voluminous discourses deal directly with the question of God. He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the worlds to come.

Some (not all) Buddhists would describe themselves as atheists, in that they do not believe in God; they could not describe themselves as materialist atheists, as they believe in non-material spiritual forces, and a transcendent higher power. It's skirting the edges of a western understanding of what "religion" is, but it's not atheist in the way the "New Atheist" movement tends to describe itself.

Consider also that Jesus was teaching a variation of Buddhism, not Judaism. As such, Buddhism dovetails very well with pre Pauline Christianity.

That's theological and historical nonsense, Le Voyageur.

SS' date=' other than the oats I don't know much about Quackers other than a friend told me they don't have clergy. In a service they congregation just sits in a room and if someone has something to say the stand up and say it. Sounds a lot like this thread.[/quote']

 

Quackers or Quakers?

I'm pretty sure "The" is his middle name. The "The" is short for Theodore.

Here are some non-denom prayers the Rotary Clubs use that are adapted for Scouts. What do you think?

1. Creator and sustainer of all that is or will ever be, accept our thanks for this day and all its blessings. We ask that you guide and direct our Troop, its leaders and our actions. Grant that each of us may feel our responsibility to the Scouts, to our community, to our country, and indeed to all countries and peoples. Bless our fellowship today, and bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies, in your service. Amen.

2. As we gather here today as members of the Scouts we pray that we are ever mindful of opportunities to render our service to fellow citizens and to our community. Keeping in mind always the enduring values of life, exerting our efforts in those areas and on those things upon which future generations can build with confidence. Let us continue to strive to make a better world. Amen.

3. We are thankful for this day that you have given us, for its blessings, its opportunities, its challenges. May we appreciate and use each day that comes to us. We pray for strength and guidance for each day as it comes, for each day’s duties, for each day’s problems. May we be challenged to give our best always, and may we be assured of your presence with us. Amen.

Let us bow our heads:

Lord of the Universe, you have given most of mankind a strong desire to do good, to be honest, to serve others, and to faithfully fulfill their obligations to their neighbors.

Help us, as Scouts, to do good.

Help us, as Scouts, to be honest and ethical in all our dealings.

Help us, as Scouts, to serve others.

And help us, as Scouts, to faithfully fulfill our obligations as neighbors to our community, our nation, and the world. Amen.

Will you please bow your head with me.

Let us pray silently together, each one of us, according to our individual beliefs.

Let us offer thanks for our food, blessings for one another.

Let us be a source of hope for those in need,

and contentment for those who are lonely.

Let us give gratitude for our opportunity to serve Scouting.

Let the feelings of love, kindness, and a well directed, yet gentle spirit always be reflected in our actions.

(30 seconds of silence) Amen.

13. Blessed are you, Lord, God of Creation. You feed the whole world with your goodness, your grace, your kindness and your mercy. You nourish and sustain us and do good to all. Bless this food to our use and us to your service. Amen.

15. Let My Eyes Be Opened

Let me awake and see the beauty that surrounds me all around.

Let me hear the singing birds make their wonderful sound.

Let me thank God for my health that has been good to me so far. Let all my dreams come true when wishing upon a star.

Let me be thankful for friendship that was lovingly given me.

Let me never forget the caring that was made for me to see.

Adapted from prayers in http://www.clubrunner.ca/data/5390/html/26534/nondemoninationalinvocations.pdf

As viewed by a small sample population: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/boy-scouts-vs-girl-scouts-a-battle-of-values/

Queens Borough President Melinda Katz is still working on her next merit badge.

Katz made an 11th-hour reversal Monday, rescinding an invitation to the regional Boy Scouts of America chapter to make a presentation at her monthly borough cabinet meeting Tuesday.

“We are . . . postponing the presentation by the Boy Scouts of America  Greater New York Councils until our office can clarify the Boy Scouts’ stance on discrimination based on sexual orientation,†Katz said in a statement provided by her spokesman.

Katz faced criticism from gay activists, who questioned her decision to give a platform to an organization they called discriminatory.

Gay rights advocates hailed Katz’s turnabout as a victory.

“The good sign is they decided to cancel; the bad sign is that it took them so long to realize it,†said Pauline Park, the executive director of the Queens Pride House, who noted that the borough president could not call herself a supporter of LGBT inclusion if she supported such “discrimintory†groups.

In the face of intense national scrutiny, the Boy Scouts of America voted last year to allow gay youth to participate, but the group has continued to prohibit openly gay scout leaders in its chapters.

“While the Boy Scouts have made recent improvements to their policies, they continue to discriminate,†said Nathan Schaefer, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda.

The organization dismissed a gay scout leader and revoked his troop’s charter in Seattle, Wash., in April after his sexual status became public.

The Greater New York Council purports to have a strict non-discrimination policy that extends to gay leaders, putting it at possible odds with the national organization.

“We strongly believe that both gay adults and youth must be welcomed in Scouting,†the group wrote in a letter posted on its website last year.

National scouting representatives declined to answer questions about the policies of the Greater New York Council, but the organization offered a statement on behalf of local president Mike Sibilia.

“Our focus continues to be on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development,†the statement said.

erosenberg@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/exclusive-beep-rescinds-invite-boy-scouts-article-1.1798599#ixzz32P9Qfqs

X

Another proud scout who wants to hurt the organization in order to help the organization, or destroy the village in order to save it, or something:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/local-teen-calls-on-amazon-to-end-support-for-boy-scouts-over-policy-on-gay-leaders/2014/05/19/0620ee48-df74-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html

Sort of: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-cut-age-limit-18-move-will-impact-gays-n110521

From NBC:

The Boy Scouts of America will limit the maximum age of youth in its programs to 18 years old in 2015, down from 21, the organization told NBC News late Tuesday.

The move means those young men from 18 to 20 years old currently participating as youth members in Scouting will have to meet adult membership standards, likely by next spring, BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in an email. Those standards include barring “open or avowed†gay adults from joining and have been at the center of a controversy that has roiled one of America’s most popular youth organizations for years.

The BSA’s National Executive Board in February made the decision in a resolution lowering the eligibility age in such programs as the high-adventure co-ed Venturing program, Sea Scouts and the Order of the Arrow, the Boy Scouts’ National Honor Society, Smith said. Some 220,000 youth – or 8 percent of the Boy Scouts youth membership - participated in Venturing in 2012, according to BSA data.

The BSA’s signature program, Boy Scouts, already has its youth age limit set at 18. After last year’s controversial ballot to allow gay youth, gay Boy Scouts believed they could continue on from that program at 18 to Venturing or the Sea Scouts program and remain a member in the organization.

“The BSA is currently considering how to establish consistency in the age requirements for registration across its various programs including Boy Scouts, Sea Scouts, Venturing and Order of the Arrow,†Smith said from Nashville, where the organization opens its annual meeting on Wednesday.

Smith noted this change would not be discussed at the meeting nor would any action be taken on it.

Implementation of the new age requirement will likely occur in spring 2015, he added. After that “young people who are 18 but not yet 21, will be required to register as adults but may still participate in those programs,†he said.

The Boy Scouts have grappled with their policy banning gays for years. In a live webcast just before the ballot to allow gay youth was held last May, BSA leaders said gay teens could still participate in the programs that define older boys as up to, but not yet, 21.

And then, the National Council voted to accept the new youthmembership standards which said participation was “open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. … No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.â€Â

Smith, the BSA spokesman, said the need to streamline the age requirements across programs came “well before†the 2013 ballot. “Obviously, the membership policy change last year highlighted the need for consistency, but it wasn’t the only, or even first, factor,†he said.

The resolution -- obtained early Tuesday by NBC from a well-placed Scouting source -- to change the age requirement was not made public after it was approved by the executive board in February.

That resolution stipulates: “That effective as soon as can be practically implemented in the judgment of the Chief Scout Executive (BSA’s top professional leader), that any person age 18 or older seeking to register as a member of the Boy Scouts of America or any program offered or sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America shall be subject to the BSA adult membership requirements pertaining to, youth protection, criminal background checks and membership standards.â€Â

Liam Easton-Calabria, an 18-year-old openly gay Eagle Scout in Venturing said the decision was “like a slap in the face.â€Â

“That just makes me really mad because they offered us a glimpse of hope as to them being an inclusive organization when they let us in, the young ones,†he said by phone from Seattle. “It’s a letdown, for sure. I just expected more from them I guess. I thought they were moving in the right direction. But this seems like they’re rolling backwards.â€Â

Zach Wahls, co-founder of Scouts for Equality, which advocates for inclusion of gays in Scouting, said his group was “deeply disappointed in this decision and fear for the gay youth who thought they were safe and will now be removed from Scouting under this new, ill-advised rule."

"In changing the definition of what constitutes an 'adult' in Scouting programs, the Boy Scouts of America has broken the very first tenet of the Scout Law, that a Scout should be trustworthy,†he said in a statement.

First published May 20th 2014, 4:18 pm

Do you not think your constitutional rights as an atheist are in jeopardy, Merlyn?

Why do you not feel that mine are not as well? Why should I not claim that, when SCOTUS is about to rule on that very same issue?

 

Look, if you really believe anyone's actual constitutional rights are being violated, file a lawsuit.

 

Public support isn't a right.

OR... I could attempt to influence public opinion on the topic the same way your side does. Corporations react to their consumers' opinions. If they don't hear a countervailing opinion than the secular one, it's because we as an organization are not doing our job.

 

Well when a soldier gets into his head that he might die and therefore seeks some religious comfort, the atheist chaplain can remind him that the only thing that awaits him is nonexistence.

"Well, son, you probably shouldn't have been so attached to your buddy, there. You and he are basically just a bag of fulminating chemicals, and the illusion of free will you experience is really just an epiphenomenon of the brute collision of atoms and chemical reactions going on in your bodies, so neither his nor your actions mattered. There's no objective standard of morality, it's all culturally and societally based, so there's no real difference between us and the enemy over there, and the atrocities the other side are inflicting on the civilian population are not any different from our actions, from a materialist perspective. The genocide was really more of an aesthetic choice, and probably was pre-determined through natural selection, so how could it be said to be "wrong"? And now that your comrade is dead, you can be assured that his consciousness ceased to exist when his brain stopped functioning, as will yours and mine, and that neither you nor he will ever see their loved ones again. There, there. Stop weeping. Here's a complimentary pocket edition of Dawkins to comfort you."

If you change the oath a scout makes, I think Scouts that make the rank of Eagle afterwards would have an asterisk attached to their achievement in the eyes of many. American scouting wouldn't be the same, and it would result in massive resignations to no positive gain.

The carved out exemption in favor of the BSA wasn't very specific' date=' either, it was for "youth organizations". An exception for the reverse could easily be the same. The only reason the BSA got the exemption in the first place was due to public support, but they're losing that.[/quote']

 

According to the Rasmussen reports, 80% said Scouting is good for young people. 59% have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Boy Scouts, which isn't bad, although the rates have dropped. That compares roughly to the 53% of the population who said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he or she was atheist in the Pew Poll that came out today. 5% said they would be more likely to vote for an atheist. Although 41% said they didn't care either way, the atheists came out at the very bottom of how people view the traits of a presidential candidate. More people would vote for an adulterer (or adulteress), a pothead, a candidate in his seventies, a gay or lesbian, or even an incumbent.

 

We're not the only ones with image problems, Merlyn. You might want to factor that in to your calculations.

 

 

 

Just like they carved out an exception in favor of the BSA' date=' they can carve out an exception and exclude youth organizations from the religious exemption.[/quote']

 

They can try to do any number of things, but the question is, will your side win in court? The closer your proposed changes come to resembling a bill of attainder, ("religious organizations are exempt, unless they serve youth, wear khaki unifoms, salute with three fingers, and have the words "Boy," "Scout," and "America" in their official title.") the less likely you are to win. Your own side (the ACLU) argued for the definition as religious, and there IS an actual constitutional amendment that protects that right.

Nice rhetorical games we play here. In regards to Religion and Geocentricism' date=' Galileo was a firm Catholic. [/quote']

 

Very true. Copernicus, the first in Christendom to lay a firm foundation for heliocentrism, was also a strong Catholic, as was Bishop Nicholas of Cusa.

The current policy for the California judges exempts religious organizations and youth organizations (such as Scouts) from the policy against membership in organizations that exclude gays.

However, the BSA is still explicitly a religious organization, as defined by a federal court decision, and one which Merlyn is well familiar.

U.S. District Court Judge Napoleon Jones, Jr. ruled that the BSA was a religious organization, and that the lease of a half-acre aquatic center on Fiesta Island in San Diego violated the separation of church and state.

That would give sufficient standing for any judge who wants to challenge any proposed changes in the judicial canons to argue that, even if they decide that youth organizations cannot be exempted, the BSA still qualifies as a religious organization, based on case law in California, and thus is exempt from any changes in the rules.

What is interesting is that we see the same phenomenon happen repeatedly: A gay political pressure group (GPPG) discovers some corporation, or a person connected to a corporation, has some sort of connection to a group that promotes a traditional definition of marriage. The GPPG starts Facebook petitions demanding they cut ties to that person, and begins an on-line demand for media attention. The corporation immediately buckles.

What has happened in several recent cases is that the public backlash from the issue has in several cases caused the corporations to do a quick reverse. Americans at heart are a people who tend to support freedom of expression, but we also like to see people employed, and I think the vast consensus of Americans is that you shouldn't lose your job or position because of a constitutionally-protected expression of speech.

Corporations tend to be concerned with the bottom line, and when Cracker Barrel realized they had alienated a large portion of their customer base by a hasty corporate decision, they caved. When SunTrust Bank realized that one of their vendors had angered a lot of their customer base, they backed off.

And not all corporations and agencies buckle - Target and the Salvation Army have been the, well, target of a gay boycott for years, but they never caved and no one really notices.

Protecting your constitutional rights these days requires that you gain control of the public narrative, and the BSA isn't very good at that, probably because as a group, we profess values of civility and courtesy that aren't often shared by those who wish to see us dissolved or irrevocably changed, and who don't play by the same rule book. Despite this, we still possess enormous reservoirs of good will among the American public (we have millions of good-will ambassadors in spiffy uniforms who are out doing community service projects, and the brand name itself is associated with helping little old ladies across the street and following a code of honor.)

If the BSA, or a subsidiary like the OA or another group would respond to these kind of attacks in a civil but firm manner, by pledging to boycott those who try to harm the BSA, deny BSA families the right of expression, or cut off funding - there would be a lot less of this going on. When Disney Corporation decided that they would not allow employees to contribute work hours to the BSA, there should have been an immediate on-line Facebook petition, pledging that the families of those who signed would not go to Disney movies, not attend Disney Theme Parks, not buy Disney merchandise, and not go on Disney Cruises until the ban was lifted.

I guarantee Scouting families contribute far more money to the Disney Corporation than they are prepared to lose. I also guarantee you that the message would go viral on sympathetic social media sites.

So, we have this going for us: The Southern Poverty Law Center has not designated the Boy Scouts as one of their hate groups. Not yet, anyway.* And Amazon doesn't think that the Scouts engage in, support, encourage, or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering, or other illegal activities.â€Â

Whew.

------

*And considering what happened when the SPLC designated the Family Research Council as a "Hate Group," that's probably a good thing: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-video-domestic-terrorist-says-he-targeted-conservative-group-for-being-anti-gay/article/2528072

From: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amazon-boy-scouts-of-america-anti-gay-problem

[h=1]Pressure grows on Amazon to cut ties with Boy Scouts of America[/h] 05/15/14 07:04 PMâ€â€UPDATED 05/16/14 05:54 PM

By Emma Margolin

Target, Chick-fil-A, Mozilla, and now Amazon? The e-commerce company, ironically known for being a friend to the LGBT community, is fast becoming the latest to earn scorn for its association with anti-gay policies.

AmazonSmile, a program announced last fall which allows consumers to donate 0.5% of all purchases to charitable organizations of the buyer’s choosing, lists the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) among its nearly one million options. For context, other charities spotlighted this week include the Wounded Warrior Project, the American Red Cross, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

The BSA has been engulfed in controversy for more than a decade over its policy barring openly gay members from participation. Last year, the group made things worse for itself when the national council voted to lift its ban on openly gay children, but leave in place its barrier to openly gay adults. Since then, several major corporations and foundations – including Alcoa, Intel, and Disney – have cut ties with the BSA over its halfway policy of inclusion.

… but not Amazon. And now, people are starting to take notice.

As of Thursday, over 105,000 had signed a change.org petition calling on Amazon to suspend its support of the Boys Scouts for as long as the group continued to ban gay adults. Seventeen-year-old Pascal Tessier, considered the first openly gay Eagle Scout approved under the new policy (though there’s no official tracking mechanism to confirm,) launched the petition last month, afterthe BSA ousted Geoffrey McGrath, a gay Seattle Scoutmaster, and revoked his church’s charter agreement.

“Geoff is an Eagle Scout, a husband and the founder of two Scouting units in underserved neighborhoods,†wrote Tessier on his change.org petition, and yet, “Amazon is supporting the Boy Scouts through its Amazon Smile program. Discrimination is nothing to smile about.â€Â

The connection is surprising, given Amazon’s reputation as a progressive company and ally to the LGBT community. Human Rights Campaign, a fierce BSA critic, gave Amazon a high score of 90 on its most recent Corporate Equality Index, which measures companies’ commitment to inclusivity. And two years ago, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos donated $2.5. million to the campaign for marriage equality in Washington state.

Spokesperson Ty Rogers didn’t address this discrepancy in an emailed statement to msnbc:

“Customers can select from nearly a million legally recognized 501©(3) charitable organizations on AmazonSmile. We rely on lists published by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the US Office of Foreign Assets Control to determine if certain organizations are ineligible to participate.â€Â

The company’s website gives further details on eligibility. In addition to having good standing with the IRS and being located in one of the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, participating organizations cannot “engage in, support, encourage, or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering, or other illegal activities.â€Â

By that standard, said Joe Levin, co-founder and general counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center – on whose judgment Amazon claims to rely for determining eligibility – the Boy Scouts shouldn’t make the cut.

“There’s not a lot of question that the Boy Scouts’ position on gay leadership definitely qualifies as intolerant by anybody’s standards – especially ours,†said Levin to msnbc. “If [Amazon’s] relying at all upon the principles of the Southern Poverty Law Center, they couldn’t include the Boy Scouts on their list of potential recipients.â€Â

Levin conceded that if Amazon were only using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of designated hate groups to determine which charities could participate in its program, then the Boy Scouts would be in the clear.

“We don’t list the Boy Scouts (as a hate group,)†said Levin. “We only do that if we have a group that’s propagating known falsehoods associated with a particular person or group – in this case, the LGBT community. The Boy Scouts haven’t really done that.â€Â

However, Amazon hasn’t made clear whether they’re solely using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups or not.

As the gay rights movement picked up steam in recent years, several companies have come under fire for failure to keep up. In 2010, Target provoked a backlash when it donated $150,000 to MN Forward, which endorsed an anti-marriage equality candidate for Minnesota governor. Target’s CEO later apologized. Two years after that, Chick-fil-A’s top boss set off a wave of protests when he made no bones about his opposition to same-sex marriage. Looking back, CEO Dan Cathy now says he made a mistake. And earlier this year, Mozilla’s newly-minted head honcho stepped down amid a firestorm of criticism for his 2008 donation to the campaign for Proposition 8 – California’s former ban on same-sex marriage.

Amazon hasn’t yet unleashed the same level outrage. But if history is any guide, supporting anti-gay policies – either directly, or indirectly – can be very bad for business.

[The attached poll shows 60% believe people should be allowed to contribute as they wish (1,835 votes) vs. 40% who feel Amazon shouldn't allow it (1,217).]

This is probably a bit of a quandry. The anti-censorship backlash came back to bite SunTrust Bank over the whole HGTV flap, and they recanted after customers started pulling their accounts, as have A&E and Crackerbarrel on the Duck Dynasty imbroglio. Amazon, which was trying to do a nice thing for the BSA and other charities, is probably wishing they had never started the AmazonSmiles campaign at this point.

From http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-s-judges-debate-proposed-ban-on-ties-to-Boy-5478844.php

[h=1]State's judges debate proposed ban on ties to Boy Scouts[/h] [h=5]Bob Egelko[/h] [h=5]Updated 6:08 am, Thursday, May 15, 2014[/h] A proposal before the California Supreme Court to require judges to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, because of the Scouts' rejection of gays and lesbians as troop leaders, has the support of the state's main judicial organization, but there's evidently some opposition in the ranks.

The justices plan to decide sometime this summer whether to add California to the 21 states whose judicial ethics codes have antidiscrimination provisions that forbid judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts. The court's eight-member ethics advisory committee, which includes six judges, unanimously submitted the proposal in February. It received a record 650 comments by last week's deadline.

Most of the comments came from lawyers and other members of the public, who opposed the plan by a substantial majority. The California Judges Association, whose members make up 79 percent of the state's 2,000 judges, endorsed the proposed ban - but about 30 individual judges submitted their own comments, and at least 25 voiced objections.

[h=3]'Political correctness'[/h] The Boy Scouts of America "has been a positive influence in the lives of millions of young men," said three San Diego County Superior Court judges, Peter Gallagher, Gary Kreep and Howard Shore.

"Forcing judges out of the Boy Scouts appears to me to be simply trying to force a liberal political correctness on judges," said Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Roland Candee.

Other objectors said the ban would interfere with their freedom of religion - since many Boy Scout troops are church-sponsored - and freedom of association. Rick Sims, a retired state appeals court justice from Sacramento, said the Scouts aren't discriminating against gay men, but simply responding cautiously to child molestation scandals in the 2.7 million-member youth organization.

[h=3]Viewpoints[/h] "In my view, the Boy Scouts act rationally by excluding people who are sexually attracted to males from being scout leaders," Sims said.

A contrasting view came from James Humes, a state appeals court justice in San Francisco and the first openly gay jurist on any California appellate court.

"The Boy Scouts' insistence on excluding openly gay men and lesbians from leadership positions panders to discredited stereotypes, encourages dishonesty, and sadly contradicts the Scouts' history and stated goals of teaching children citizenship, respect and honesty," Humes said.

California's judges haven't been polled on the issue, and a law professor said the posted comments probably don't reflect the prevailing views on the bench.

"When you're against something, you're more motivated to write," said David Levine, who teaches at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Although the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gays, he said, "we have strong antidiscrimination laws in California, and judges are sworn to uphold them."

All three San Francisco Superior Court judges who submitted comments - Angela Bradstreet, Kay Tsenin and Carol Yaggy - supported the proposed ban.

The Scouts historically banned gays as both members and leaders. They repealed the membership ban at a contentious national council meeting in May 2013, effective this year, but maintained the prohibition on gay and lesbian adult leaders.

That decision has led to multiple defections - some groups leaving the Scouts for new organizations that exclude gays, others opting for independent status with gay or lesbian leaders. It also prompted the California court's ethics committee to propose repealing a 1996 court rule that allows judges to belong to "nonprofit youth organizations" - specifically, the Boy Scouts - that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

If the court adopts the proposal, affiliation with the Scouts would become an ethical violation that could lead to removal from the bench.

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Boy Scouts of America....?"