the Scouts more “inclusive” has takennhold among the “chattering classes.”nThe United Way of America representsna second vulnerability to thenScouts. Donations from the UnitednWay constitute approximately 25 percentnof the organization’s annual budget.nThe United Way advises its localnchapters not to contribute to organizationsnthat discriminate on the basis ofnrace, color, creed, sex, or nationalnorigin. The United Way chapter innDeKalb County, Illinois, cited unspecifiedndiscrimination in its decision tondeny funding to the local Scout council.nThe national United Way organizationnhas neither condemned nor commendednthe action of the DeKalbnchapter and has refused to commentnabout the worthiness of the Scouts fornfuture contributions until present andnpending litigation is settled. If any ofnthe current discrimination suits arenresolved against the Scouts, they couldnconfront the loss of United Way funds.nThe United Way has already extractedna significant concession fromnthe Scouts. In early August came annannouncement that an adjunct programnto Scouting entitled “Learningnfor Life” would be offered in publicnschools. The Scouts insisted that thenprogram had been in development fornquite a while, and that its originalnpurpose was to provide specialized instructionnfor inner-city youth. However,nthe program has been opened tonatheists, homosexuals, and youngnwomen; this decision has apparentlynresolved a dispute over a nine thousandndollar United Way grant that had beennwithheld because of “discrimination.”nPredictably, this concession appearsnto be begetting demands for furthernappeasement. The Bay Area branch ofnUnited Way, which had held up thengrant, has pronounced that the newnprogram represeiits a good “first step.”nOther critics of the Scouts are even lessnsatisfied with the new arrangement.nLynn Hect Schafran of the NOWnLegal Defense Fund complains that bynincluding girls in the “Learning fornLife” program, “The Boy Scouts arenlumping giris together with society’snmost marginalized citizens into a clubnthat could be called Tariahs Unlimited.'”nThe liberal refrain was not surprising:nthe alternative program is improper,nbecause “separate is inherentlynunconstitutional.”nBut the United Way presents justnone horn of Scouting’s financial dilemma.nThe other horn comes in the formnof a threat from the Church of JesusnChrist of Latter-day Saints and thenRoman Catholic Church. These twondenominations sustain over one quarternof all Scout troops in America.nThey have announced their intentionnto withdraw their support from the BoynScouts of America if the organizationnchanges its policy regarding homosexualnScoutmasters.nThe Mormon Church organizednthe first American Scouting Council inn1913. If the Church decided to withdrawnfrom the national Scouting body,nit would be in a good position toninaugurate an independent organization.nIn Utah, where the Church has itsnbase, between 95 and 98 percent of allnScouts are Mormon. The four UtahnScout Councils receive a negligiblenamount from the United Way; one ofnthem, the Utah National Parks Council,nstopped receiving United Waynfunds in 1985. The financial assets ofnthe Mormon Church probably outstripnthose of any other American denomination.nIf the Mormons, Catholics,nand other religious traditionalists leftnScouting, they could conceivably takenScouting with them.n’Trogressives” in Utah, perhapsnsensing this possibility, have taken upnthe cudgels against both the Scouts andnthe Mormon Church. In a Salt LakenTribune story published on June 26,nChris Allen, director of the Utah chapternof the American Atheists (MadalynnO’Hair’s organization), condemnednthe Scouts for “bigotry” against atheists,nhomosexuals, and girls. “We don’tnlike the idea of their teaching theirnstandards in the public schools. I’mnsure you could talk to the Aryan Nationsnand the KKK and they could talknof their high moral values.” Allenndescribed the influence of the Mormonnand Roman Catholic churches asna conspiracy to impose a “Civil Religion”nupon America through Scouting,nand insisted that the use of Scoutingnto promote religious values is “un-nAmerican” and a violation of the principlenof the separation of church andnstate.nThe American Atheists use theirnliterature and gatherings to propagatenhatred for religion and religious peoplen(albeit with admirable evenhandednessnnnamong faiths and denominations); accordingly,nthe group is in a poor positionnto complain about bigotry. Onenmight dismiss Allen’s fulminations asnthe grumbling of a marginalized crank,nbut four days after the interview appearednthe Tribune — Utah’s secondnlargest daily — gentrified Allen’s opinionsnin a house editorial.nThe Tribune editorial was headlined,n”Boy Scouts should join Americanin welcoming greater Diversity.”nThe piece was a sanitized, “compassionate”nretread of Allen’s charge ofn”un-Americanism.” It obliquely condemnednthe Mormon and Catholicnchurches for threatening to withdrawnfrom Scouting and then urged localnchapters of the United Way to withdrawnfinancial support from Scouting,naverring that their funds “might benbetter spent on organizations that benefitna broader spectrum of the Americannpopulation.” (Atheists, by the mostngenerous reckoning, comprise about 7npercent of the population, homosexualsnless than 5 percent. Presumablynthese groups overlap. Girls have anScouting program of their own. Clearlynthe Boy Scouts, as presently constituted,nare representative of the “broadnspectrum” of American society.) ThenTribune cheerfully anticipates the daynwhen “Scout affiliation with the publicnschools . . . might open the door • tongovernment intervention in membershipnpolicy.” State intervention wouldnliberate the Scouts from the “hideboundntradition” that keeps the organizationn”exclusively male and predominantlynChristian.” Once broken to thenstate’s saddle, the Scouts would takentheir place among the enlightenedn”government, business, social, and civicnorganizations . . . that welcome,nrather than deny, diversity.”nThere are those of us who maintainnthat it is perversity, rather than diversity,nthat the Scouts reject. Gently, butninsistently, the Tribune scolded us:n”The ban on homosexual scoutmastersnis based upon the unfair generalizationnthat all homosexuals pose a threat tonthe privacy and healthy sexual developmentnof youngsters. Not all homosexualsnare pedophiles or inclined to ‘recruit’nboys to their ranks.” Actually, thenban is based upon two eminently sensiblenconsiderations. The first is thenmoral judgment that homosexuality isnwrong and depraved. The second con-nJANUARY 1992/45n