"I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance." — Samuel Taylor Coleridge.bul-ly, n a: a blustering browbeating fellow, esp. one habitually cruel to others weaker than himself b: the protector of a prostitute : pimp. — Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.
Everyone remembers the class bully, the kid whose physical size had outgrown his emotional maturity. Usually it is difficult to stay out of the way of a bully because a bully is hypersensitive to perceived slights. Looking the wrong way at the wrong time is sufficient to provoke a confrontation. Of course, the real reason for this sensitivity is to maximize the number of opportunities to intimidate, to force acknowledgment of the bully's power and authority.
Consider the following. The twin Randall boys of Anaheim in Orange County California are atheists. The Boy Scouts of America, as part of their First Amendment right to freely associate, create programs that rely on, among other things, a belief in a supreme being. There is no requirement to be a member of a particular religion or sect. Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims all support scout troops and dens. Scouts believe that belief in a God is a core element of their program. They do not force or even ask anyone to believe, they just provide an important program for those who do.
This is not enough for the two young California atheists. They (or perhaps their parents) are attempting to use the heavy club of the courts to compel the Boy Scouts to change their policy. Make no mistake about it. The purpose of the suit is not to let these particular boys join a youth program, it is to cleanse the Scouts of any — even a nonsectarian — religious element. The purpose of the suit is to tell five million scouts that they should run, in the name of tolerance, the Boy Scouts program in the Randall way.
The suit attempts to build its case on the thin reed that the Scouts are a business. If the Boys Scouts are a business, then they are restricted by statute to admit anyone. Chief Judge Ronald George during oral arguments before the California Supreme Court seemed singularly unimpressed with such sophistry. Exercising a little common sense, something that is often absent from California courts, George questioned the logic of calling the non-profit organization a business saying, "we're talking about attending meetings at member's houses."
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Frank Monaldo's Conservative Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.