Scouting and Sinnby William GriggnThe Case Against thenBoy ScoutsnThe Boy Scouts of America havenrecently been accused of sinsnagainst Democracy, in the form ofndiscrimination against atheists, homosexuals,nand women. Four recent lawsuitsnhave challenged the organizationalnprerogatives of the Scouts. The familiesnof nine-year-old twins Michael andnWilliam Randall of Anaheim, California,nand eight-year-old Mark Welsh ofnChicago are suing to get their youngstersnadmitted as Cub Scouts withoutnthe boys having professed a belief in anSupreme Being. In Los Angeles, thencase arising from the 1980 dismissal ofnTom Curran, a homosexual, from hisnposition as Scoutmaster, remains active.nLast July a contingent from the militantngroup “Queer Nation” besieged anScout office in San Francisco in annattempt to register as Scoutmasters.nQueer Nation spokesman StephennMorgan declared, “The Boy Scouts arenin need of the positive influence of gaynrole models.”nMargo Mankes, an eight-year-oldnFlorida girf who had been accepted asnan informal member of a Cub Scoutn44/CHRONICLESnVITAL SIGNSnpack, has been ordered out by a regionalnScout Council. Miss Mankes respondednby going to Circuit Court to pleadnfor a chance to attend Scout camp. Herncause made good copy and attracted thenservices of attorney Mark Rubin.nMankes and Rubin, along with Curran,nappeared on CNN’s Larry King Livenlast July 10 — Curran to celebrate thenfact that a California court has declarednthe Boy Scouts to be a public entitynand thus liable to civil rights laws,nRubin to deploy potted platitudesnabout “justice” and “equality,” andnMankes to serve as a sympathetic prop.nThe contours of this controversy arenwearily familiar to students of the political-correctnessnplague. Not all commentators,nhowever, see this simplentruth. Michael Hinds of the ‘New YorknTimes insists, “This is not a disputenover political correctness. The dissidentsnare not trying to alter the programnof skills and homey virtues thatnthe Scouts have taught to four generationsnof American boys. Rather, theynsimply want to join the organization,nand the Scouts do not want them.”nHinds is, at best, disingenuous.nCompelling the Scouts to modify theirnadmission and membership policiesnwould result in the death of the organizationnthrough the redefinition of itsnmission. Forcing the Scouts into gendern”integration” would destroy thenorganization’s distinctiveness, andnmake the Girl Scouts redundant. (Significantly,non the Larry King shownMiss Mankes said that she would bensatisfied if the Girl Scouts would makensome changes in their selection ofnactivities. Rubin blanched at this unprovokedndisplay of reasonableness onnthe part of his client.) Compelling thenScouts to hire homosexual Scoutmastersnwould exacerbate the problem thenorganization has with parents andnsponsors worried about child abuse.nMoreover, making the Scouts abandonntheir religious requirement (this hasnbeen a pet project of the AmericannAtheists for many years) would invalidatena founding tenet of the organization.nArticle IX of the Scout bylaws asserts,n”The Boy Scouts of Americannnmaintains that no member can growninto the best kind of citizen withoutnrecognizing an obligation to God.”nThis obligation is codified in the ScoutnOath and the Scout Law, which arendutifully recited at every Scout meeting.nThe Scouts are scrupulously nonsectariannin applying the religious requirement:nclause three of Article IXnmaintains that “In no case where a unitnis connected with a Church or otherndistinctively religious organization shallnmembers of other denominations ornfaiths be required, because of theirnmembership in the unit, to take part innor observe a religious ceremony distinctlynpeculiar to that organization ornchurch.”nAn atheist Scout would thus benexcused from any religious functionsnincidental to his membership in a unitn—but he couldn’t avoid the ScoutnOath. Recognition of a Scout’s duty tonGod is fundamental to the mission ofnScouting. It is true, as Mr. Hinds says,nthat dissidents aren’t trying to “alternthe program” of Scouting. Their objectivenis more comprehensive — thentransformation of Scouting into a completelynsecular entity.nMark Welsh, the young atheist fromnChicago, is a second-generation malcontent.nHis father, Elliot Welsh, declarednhimself a Conscientious Objectornin 1970 on “ethical” rather thannreligious grounds. The SupremenCourt found in favor of Welsh, therebynimposing a rather drastic reform uponnthe military. It is difficult to believe thatnMark Welsh is acting on his ownninitiative; it is more likely that hisnfather, much like insuff^erable LittienLeague parents who use their childnathletes as proxies, has used his son as anpolitical surrogate.nIn addition to the courts, the Scoutsnare vulnerable to two avenues of attack.nThe first runs through Congress. SectionnVIII of the 1915 act that incorporatednthe Scouts requires the organizationnto “make and transmit tonCongress a report of its proceedings”nevery year on or before April 1. Notnmany in Congress are likely to discernnany political advantage in beating upnon Scouting, but the idea of makingn