Simple question: Should homosexual boys and/or atheists be allowed to join the Boy Scouts of America?

(What are the Boy Scouts? click here (http://www.scouting.org/))

The issue - and why I'm asking (http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/06/scouts.court.update/)

Here is a view from someone who was a scout and is still involved in scouting.

Of course not.

I mentioned in a different thread that I am the treasurer of our local Cub Scout pack.

The Boy Scouts (and the Cub Scouts) are a private non-profit organization. The Scouts have set up their own rules and if you don't want to follow them you can't join.

As to the two points you mention here is my interpretation of them.

1. Homosexuality- The scouting leadership has determined that being homosexual does not live up to the "moral" code of conduct they require of all their leaders/members. Right or wrong that is their decision and if you want to be involved in scouting you cannot be a homosexual.

2. Atheism- This issue hits a lot closer to home with me. My wife and I are Jewish. My wife was dead set against scouting because she deemed it "A Christian thing" and didn't want our son to participate. It is unfortunate that scouting uses the word "God" so often. The leadership of scouting requires all leaders/members to have faith. In our Pack we have Christians, Jews, Hindus, and a few others that I'm not even quite sure what they are. To the best of my knowledge the only two groups not allowed are agnostics and atheists. If you want to worship the sun and the moon you may.

Scouting is also a very patriotic organizations. That puts off a lot of people as they consider it brainwashing. Scouting is viewed differently by each community. Our local school will not allow us to meet in the school because of the homosexual position. Instead we meet at a local nursing home and at a VFW lodge. However, the school did appreciate that this year our wolf cubs cleaned up the entire school yard in order to earn their bobcat badge

Odd, I'm from a completely atheistic family, we don't hide the fact, and I was in the scouts when I was a kid, for a little while anyway.

I wasn't a good scout, I was a bad scout, so I didn't stay very long, but they didn't really seem to care what religion anyone was.

Well, it boils down to whether the Boy Scouts is a business or a private organisation. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not about to give an opinion on that. Businesses aren't allowed to discriminate. The real question in my mind (although this isn’t what the court is deliberating, and maybe isn't even what this thread is about) is, does a private organisation have the right to discriminate? I think that they do, provided that the reasons for the discrimination go to the core of the organisation’s existence in the first place. If, however, giving membership to those people otherwise being discriminated against would not undermine the reason for the organisation’s existence, that is (or should be) another matter. Although I was never a Scout, I’ve always thought that the Boy Scouts existed partly to teach some life skills, and partly to teach them how to be good people and citizens; I’m not sure what being gay or atheist/agnostic has to do with that. However, from their Mission and Vision, it appears there is more to it than I thought, and as long as “duty to God” and heterosexuality is reinforced on a regular and consistent basis, then fine, as long as the Scouts is found to be a private organisation and not a business.

I'm not surprised being a Boy Scout is supported as being patriotic, considering our president's stance on atheism and more importantly, homosexuality. Can we please get this guy out of office? The division between church and state has long since blurred.

Private institutions can absolutely discriminate. Can anyone say "The Masters/Augusta Country Club?" Why aren't boys allowed in the Girl Scouts? That's what the whole "private" thing is all about.

I think the issue here is one to do with rights of the few versus the rights of another few. For example, given the private organization nature of the scouts, they have the right, endeniably, of determining their membership. My house, for example, is a private residence. I don't have to let, say, left handed people in (I picked that for the purposes of not being too controversial). YOu can call me all sorts of names and all that good stuff, and maybe you're right, but it doesn't change the fact that your rights as a lefty do not supersede my rights to run my home as I see fit.

Now, once that organization starts to take government funding, then things get sticky, but I know my scout troop as a boy raised all its own money. Bottle drives, fertlizer sales, recycling, etc. No government money = no government say in our bahavious as long as we do not hurt anyone else through direct action.

Stop discrimination. Admit Dubya to Mensa, make Mathetais the chairman of Atheist League, make Shura the next Pope and allow me to marry my computer. And adopt children.

Hey, I was a Cub Scout, Weebalo, and Boy Scout(made it to Star) and I was an atheist before I joined ;)

My initial thoughts: why the heck would anyone want to join the Boy Scouts in the first place? I realize that tying knots is a useful skill, but still... The only kind of knot I could picture myself tying would be a 'noose' and that is only if the one condition was satisfied: I was a member of the Boy Scouts.

*Warning. Rant ahead.*
The problem with the Boy Scouts is that they discrimate on a characteristic deemed immoral by an archaic mythology with tenuous links to reality.

Please realize that Christianity is simply a complex meme. Think of Christianity as an organism (a conglomerate of various genes more specifically), in order to survive from one generation to the next a meme such as Christianity will favor traits (teachings) that maximize its 'reproductive fitness,' just as we would expect from genes. Homosexuality is a danger to the continued spreading of the meme because homosexuals are unable to pass Christian beliefs to the next generation of robots.

Is there anything inherently wrong with homosexuality? Of course not, any clear thinking person knows that.

The problem with the Boy Scouts is they perpetuate the mythologically-based meme that homosexuality is immoral. The continuation of this idea has far reaching consequences. In extreme cases those brainwashed by antiquated religions can go as far to hurt or even murder people based on their sexual orientation. More commonly, however, this prejudice is usually expressed in more subtle ways.

All I can really say that it pains me that our civilization even has organizations like the Boy Scouts that discriminate on the basis of something as unimportant and inane as sexual preference. The best solution, in my view, is simply to boycott organizations like the Boy Scouts and try to establish organizations with similar goals (to teach survival skills, etc) without the baggage of Christian mythology (hatred, ignorance, stupidity, etc).

Yeah, Scouting has the right to make the "moral" statements that they wish, being as they are a private, chartered group. In fact, most of the scout troops around here, are actually sponsored by churches, and meet at the church facilities.

Personally, I was a scout for @ 3 years, but it never really clicked. I knew there was a problem when I went to the Jamboree, and wanted to read a book!

I am Christian, and my belief is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. When it becomes wrong is when homosexuals have sex with one another. There is nothing sinful to have an attraction to the same sex, but it's wrong to engage in a sex act for two reasons:
1. The act is not open to the creation of life (the true purpose of sex, the pleasure is just a by-product)
2. It is an act between 2 unmarried people (my church does not recognize same sex marriages) and therefore is just as wrong as pre-marital sex between two hetero-people.

Anyway, not trying to drag down this thread, just wanted to clarify "my" Christian understanding of homosexuality. Please, don't turn this into a religion argument thread...been in enough of those already. Just wanted to clarify some statements that Inquisitor said.

I did learn all of my knots, though.

Wasn't this decided in 2000?

From 2000:

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty has filed a friend-of-the-court brief prepared by the Institute for Justice, a merry band of libertarian lawyers in Washington. GLIL argues that defeating the New Jersey Scouts would be a Pyrrhic victory for gays and lesbians, who have, historically and still, a large stake in society respecting what the Scouts are asserting, the First Amendment right of freedom of association...

But GLIL agrees that the Scouts are a creedal organization with an explicitly moral mission. And citing much history--for example, until the late 1970s the IRS denied tax-exempt status to organizations that "promoted" homosexuality--the GLIL brief argues that gays have suffered "when freedom of association has not been respected and governments have been allowed to trample on the rights of citizens to freely gather together."

The GLIL brief says the New Jersey decision is pernicious because "it places the government in the intolerable position of second-guessing a private organization's interpretation of its own rules and articulation of its own message." Furthermore, the New Jersey ruling is perverse because it says the right of expressive association belongs only to organizations that have messages more forcefully stated than is the Scouts' disapproval of homosexuality. The New Jersey court parsed the Scout oath about being "straight" and "clean" and said the oath does not forbid homosexual conduct. Furthermore, the court said the Scouts did not produce sufficient evidence that the organization wants to communicate disapproval of homosexuality. This is an incentive for the Scouts to increase their anti-gay emphasis....

GLIL argues that the inclusion of gays in all facets of life is profoundly desirable because it sends "a message of tolerance and acceptance." But when a private association is involved, the First Amendment requires that "this message must be sent through private choice and must not be communicated due to government coercion." As the Supreme Court has said, freedom of association "plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." ...

The GLIL, warning against "creeping infringement" of freedom of association, notes that gay organizations often seek and administer "gay environments," including clubs, retreats, vacations and professional and alumni organizations. America needs a livelier understanding of the arithmetic of rights that GLIL understands: Multiplying rights, such as the right of a gay to be a Scoutmaster, can mean a net subtraction from freedom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=opinion/columns/willgeorge&contentId=A17062-2000Mar25&notFound=true

SCOTUS decided that 2000 case in favor of the Boy Scouts and the Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (well, not really, they weren't a party but you get the drift) in a 5-4 decision. The holding was the application of the NJ law to force the boy scouts to accept a gay scoutmaster interfered with the boy scouts rights under the first amendment to freely associate.

It has been decided. And if Cali tells the boy scouts who they have to let into their clubhouse SCOTUS will give the Cali court a slap on the wrist - unless one of the justices keels over before then.

The legal issue has already been decided 3 years ago. Chalk one up on the side of freedom. (that last bit thrown in for folks to rant about)

DMC - The whole private thing is one of those "things" that I never could understand. Any private organization exists in a larger community and is still governed by the society as a whole. Thus, if anyone who is in that organizaton seeks to have the privileges of being a citizen of a nation, and the protection of freedom that goes along with that kind of status, then it would make sense that everyone in that organization is subject to the larger laws. I not saying that the government should prevail above all else; the Law of the Land should prevail except where the government is limited by the Constitution and its additions.

Happily, there is a very distinct separation between Church and State and in most instances a patriot is not forced to choose between the two. This is a good situation for those of us who have faith that extends even beyond the loyalties we have to our Constitution. Hence, a Quaker can be exempt from service to the country by means of religious beliefs. This the legacy of the genius of the men who created our system of government.

IMO, a real patriot is someone who considers himself an American before anything else. I never could understand how a private organization such as the KKK could have freedom to advocate the overthrow of the government and our Constitution. Most regard such behavior as treason. And I agree that any attempt to either overtly or covertly to subvert the Constitution is by definition treason. The Klan is opposed to everything that America is supposed to stand for. Yet, they enjoy the protection of freedom that they would destroy if given the chance. This never has made any sense to me. They are probably only allowed to preach what they do because most don't consider them to be a big enough threat. If they were, would they be allowed to go as far as they do?

Now, I'm not suggesting in anyway that the Boy Scouts are traitors. However, if they claim that their membership and organization enjoys the status of being "American" then they are held by the beliefs that our constitution and the spirit of what the Founders brought to our system entails. Thus, the Founders never said that those who are "gay" should be exempted from the protection of our system of government. At least not that I am aware. If the Boy Scouts feel that they can't live up to the spirit of what it means to be American, then they should not enjoy the status of being referred to as an American organization, since they can't meet the standard of "equality" established by our system of government.

Yet, if the Klan can, why can't they?

[ November 13, 2003, 18:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I guess, Chandos, that we're all afraid of what have might happened if the 1st Continental Congress had been erradicated. The rights of all groups are protected, even if they oppose the standing regime.

HS - At the time of the first Congress there was no America, nor was there an American Constitution yet. The Second Congress met in 1775 to begin the process; an army was created and the printing of Continental money. This was after Lexington and Concord. Yet, the meetings were held in secrecy behind closed doors and not open to the public. It was not until the Third Congress met in 1776 that independence was declared from England, again in secrecy. The drafting of the Constitution itself came much later, 1787, as I'm sure you are aware.

Yet, "there are truths that we hold to be self-evident..." I'm sure you know the rest.

Edit: HS - I just had to ask: Given that Thomas Jefferson, the man who drafted the Declaraton, had sex out of marriage with one of his slaves, would he fail the so called "moral standard" of the Boy Scouts, and thus, be denied member status?

[ November 13, 2003, 06:16: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

The "scouts" makes my skin crawl. I just have really terrible vibes, but then that was from a few times joining in Australia. Ooooh, I still feel creepy and it was 20 years ago...

Different countries, different customs. Obviously. As former scout, I say, no, no such humbug here. And atheists can become scouts too.

All the christian stuff is for the christian groups (rival of the scouts here, but quite unimportant). Don't know what such stuff would have to do with the scouts.

I should state, for the record, that I hated the scouts. Not fun for me at all. But, if you want to get on your High Homosexual Horse and state that they should be FORCED to accept homosexuals or atheists, then you'd better tell that to the NAACP -- they have to accept whites (maybe they do, sorry if that'sa bad example) you have to force all bars and clubs to admit the first 250 people to show up, instead of holding up exclusive memberships, you have to tell the Catholics that they must give communion to everyone all the time, you must tell the Jews that anyone can come and chill in the synagogue.

In other words, you have to be willing to shove the governments big regulatory nose right into every private organization's business. It's not possible or feasible or even moral. I'm sure there's no law forbidding homosexuals and or atheists from banding together and camping and learning about the stuff scouts learn -- it's a free country and they can do as they wish -- SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE!

In other words, you have to be willing to shove the governments big regulatory nose right into every private organization's business. It's not possible or feasible or even moral. I'm sure there's no law forbidding homosexuals and or atheists from banding together and camping and learning about the stuff scouts learn -- it's a free country and they can do as they wish -- SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE! Yes, and other scouts in other countries distanced themselves from practices in the USA. Which was their good right too.

During the last European Conference of scouts and [girl] guides, at the initiative of the Belgian delegation a resolution was approved not to consider homosexuality as a discriminatory factor, neither inside nor outside scouting. This resolution was a reaction by Belgium to the recent troubles with the Boy Scouts of America regarding the exclusion of gay members, on account of which Steven Spielberg, among others, resigned from the organization. The European Conference of Scouts and Guides, which took place from 7 - 12 July in Prague, was attended by more than 400 representatives from throughout Europe. Belgian delegates represented the five Belgian scouts and guides organizations, which have around 150,000 members. Scouting and Guiding is active in 41 European countries, with approximately 3.5 million boys and girls participating. Worldwide the organization counts around 35 million scouts and guides in 216 countries, and the Jamboree, to be held next year in Thailand, is its most eye-catching international initiative. The Belgian proposal to avoid discrimination based on sexual preference opened
with the charter of fundamental rights of the child adopted by the European Union in Nice in December 2000. Further, the amendment pointed out evolutions in present day society and the fact that scouting and guiding always follow the tendencies of youth culture, put to the test of the principles of the movement. Following this it was stated that "holebis" [the Belgian abbreviation for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals] are to be universally accepted within European society and that this cannot be used as an exclusionary criterion by national [scouting] federations. The Belgian proposal was approved by a large majority of the conference representatives. Turkey, Greece, Romania, Portugal, Cyprus, and Malta voted against the initiative. The five Belgian scouts and guides organizations (VVKSM, FOS, FCS, GCB, and SGP) hope that the approval of this resolution will have an impact on other regions of the world. The American observer at the conference was "not really happy" with the result [of the vote on the initiative]. However, news is trickling out that the scouting movement in the United States is coming under pressure from, among others, gigantic sponsors such as Levis and Coca Cola, to revise its policy against gays.
http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/082802.shtml

When i was in the Boy-scouts i don't think that there was a rule for the membership. After all i think that is the general idea in boy-scouts, everyone is free to join. But things may change allthough we may not like the course.
I don't agree but unless there is a protest by the people who close to the events (and i mean not the participants) then what can someone who lives in a diffenent countrymuch worse continent say.

Founding an organisation technically similar but axiologically neutral (in theory, because you still have the law of the land etc) is a perfectly legitimate option. Just let the gay and the atheist scout wannabies get together and found one. If they wish, they can create The Gay Scouts of America or The Atheist Scouts of America.

I would like to remind SOME PEOPLE that we are talking about discrimination. This is not a 'your opinion on Christianity' thread. If you want to brag about how hateful, ignorant and stupid Christians are and want a Christian read and reply to that (in a hateful, ignorant and stupid way), I am ready.

At this point, it seems that Christians are ignorant because they won't acknowledge someone's opinions as facts. Basically, ignorant because they won't accept someone else's assumptions as axioms. They're stupid, because they don't agree with someone's ideas and they're hateful because they claim that it's not so obvious that they're wrong ;)

This very same way, I could take a random Christianity basher and claim that he's ignorant because he doesn't accept that God exists, has created the world, that Jesus Christ is his saviour etc. Also stupid, because he believes contrary or even just differently from Christianity. And ultimately hateful because he won't be a good boy and give up his views just because I cast the light of reason upon him ;)

However, I'd rather call him ignorant because he criticises the tenets of Christianity without knowing them, stupid because he doesn't realise his ignorance and hateful because he first shoots, then asks questions.

Do I do either? Not even the latter, even if some non-Christians would do. Instead, I'm talking calmly and arguing logically. I realise that truth for me is not truth for everyone and I don't force my assumptions on anyone. Nor do I feel outraged that people have different views. Contrary, I put effort in understanding different ideas and helping people expressing them to understand mine. However, I'm still ignorant, stupid and hateful. Because I'm Christian.

So, if I can be ignorant, stupid and hateful because I profess Christian religion with its tenets and legacy, what's wrong with people not being admitted by Boy Scouts on the grounds of their beliefs?

Still, above in this thread we have people who were scouts despite being atheists. And they weren't forced to disguise their atheism. I don't know, and it was not included in the story, how the brothers expressed their atheism. That should help us a little bit.

Ultimately, they and the gay former scoutmaster were removed from an organisation intended to promote specific values because they lived according to different values than the ones promoted by their organisation.

Should I go to an axiologically atheistic organisation of, let's say, roleplayers and demand to be kept there despite my constant Catholic reservations and observations when it comes to ideology? And it's basically a roleplaying organisation, isn't it? And I just want to roleplay ;)

Me? Pope? :evil:

*thinks of all the destruction he could cause as Pope* Yes...that will be good. Inquisition/Jyhad time!

:evil:

On topic: Homosexuals and atheists, if the Boy Scouts don't want to play with you, simply go play somewhere else and let them languish in their bigotry and ignorance.

There's no point debating with people whose wills aren't their own but are attributed to some deity anyway and who thus think they have a right to define morals for others.

No need for such a heated conflict.

LOL

I must admit I got a chuckle from reading Shura's post after reading Chevalier's.

My personal feelings are more in line with Chevalier's. I am not a Christian, but I feel you can replace the word Christian in his rant with many other words such as Jewish, Conservative, member of the NRA, etc. and it would still hold true.

If the topic had been that the scouts are refusing to allow pedophiles (and I am not implying that homosexuals are pedophiles) would we have seen quotes like this.

simply go play somewhere else and let them languish in their bigotry and ignorance.
I tend to doubt it.

In my experience the people who moan the most about bigotry and ignorance feel it doesn't apply to their values for they must be right. :p

In my experience the people who moan the most about bigotry and ignorance feel it doesn't apply to their values for they must be right. And that's the biggest problem with defenders of tolerance. They must be right... for they know they are ;) They'll sooner concede their religion is false or their political views are false, or their morals are relative, but not tolerance and all related. Basically, they show more un-worldly faith and dedication than many religious people ;) As a result, they're effectively the most radical folks around and the most prone to lynch other folks. They're also the loudest. Sometimes, when I feel like it and when I'm confident of my fortitude throws, I engage in debates with them, put my point beyond any organised religion or whatever system of beliefs and just stick to tolerance values and formal logic. Ultimately, I'm teaching them tolerance. I, Roman Catholic who's against abortion, euthanasia, gay marriages, gay adoption of children, contraception and several social, cultural and economic dogmas of present times (ban idolomania!) ;) In all honesty, I don't see such zeal in the most bigoted fellow believers of mine :p

In most cases, from standing firm in defence of my views (for whose sake would I believe if I weren't going to take that seriously?), they imply arrogance and close-mindedness. I'm stubborn and will not submit to even the most logical of arguments - like "You're wrong. In fact, it's not evil.". If that's a logical argument, I'm Dubya's twin. However, they see nothing wrong about their own throwing rocks around in the name of tolerance. They will not concede, they will not get back for even an inch, they, ultimately, will never accept any logical argument. "Sometimes not everything that's right is logical", "There are things beyond human logic". I'm amazed. Shouldn't *I* be telling that to *them* :D ? Oh, and how logical they become when it comes to religions or morals when it suits them. The closest analogy that comes to my mind is Inquisition or some of mediaeval to renaissance Christians. They make a religion of their views, they put it above logic, but they apply logic, however very ably but in a misguided fashion, to any other beliefs to declare them false and blasphemous. For what else do they do?

Tolerance, folks, tolerance :rolleyes:

[ November 17, 2003, 23:09: Message edited by: chevalier ]

It's an odd thing how some people can see their own faults in others.

[ November 18, 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I have said this so many times before, and I will likely be forced to say it again. One of the freedoms that Americans -- and most westerners, even if it's not entrenched in their constitutions -- is the freedom of peaceful assemble and association. That means that we have the right, without government intervention. The converse must also be true, then -- if they can't tell us who we may associate with, then neither may they tell us who we must associate with. Assuming our assemblies and associations are peaceful, then the government has no place regulating those assemblies or associations, either to force inclusion or exclusion.

[ November 18, 2003, 17:24: Message edited by: Lord Keldin Depaara ]

Talk about the pot calling the stainless steel kettle black. :rolleyes:

My non-religion never launched an Inquisition. No Crusades either.

I won't even demean myself by arguing further. Some individuals just aren't worth any expenditure of my intellect.

My non-religion never launched an Inquisition. No Crusades either I agree.

Sincerely,

Stalin and Mao.

Laches, :lol:

Getting back slightly to the topic at hand, can we force, say, a Jewish temple to accept as members devout Muslims?

Can we force the AMA to accept a malpractice lawyer as a member (ooh, that would be funny)?

As mentioned in my earlier post, there are men-only golf clubs (only the most obvious of which is Augusta) and the girl scouts. Should they be forced to take females and males as members respectively?

Should black-only fraternities and sororities be forced to accept a representative sample of other races?

Some of this stuff is flat-out silly. If the Boy Scouts want to promote religion and heterosexuality, why should they be forced to accept members diametrically opposite to that stance?

Laches' comment was funny. But, Shura's point is still well taken, because Catholicism and tolerance are not usually used in the same sentence together, particularly when speaking of the Middle Ages. Even later, during the 17th and 18th centuries, while the Protestant Dutch had a "golden age of tolerance" (when even Jews were welcome in Amsterdam), the Spanish were setting the "savage heathens" on fire and hearding them into "missions" in the New World, all in the name of Catholicism.

To be sure, Catholicism has a wonderful wealth of traditions and great depth of belief, but its never been noted for its tolerance.

As long as the scouts don't go about digging moats around homosexual and athiest peoples' houses to keep them away from the 'untainted' of society it seems fine to me that they can deny access. Heck, it's their club, their rules, you don't like it: don't join.

I'd like to make a note on athists and agnostics. Most 'athiests' are agnostics yet all agnostics are not athiests. Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you don't believe in the potential of there being a god (if proven to you beyond all reasonable doubt).

However, if the scouts are banning/not permitting athiests what about people from other religions?
OoC: I'm not athiest, I'm a pagan. I sacrifice small animals on pentagrams every day and drink their blood from a baby-bottle. I'm not homosexual. Can I be denied entry to the boy scouts?

What about a Hindu? Or any other religion? Can they be denied access to the boy scouts? If not the boy scouts need a good renaming session to something like "The Survival Skills Society of Hetrosexual Christian Boys" simply because "Boy Scouts" implies anyone of the male gender under a certain age can join.

I can answer that one -- the Boy scouts of Canada have symbols and badges for pretty well all faiths, from Buddhist to Sikh to Muslim. The goal is religious development -- if your'e not religious, I don't know why you would want to join other than to cause problems. it would be like me trying to join a sports team when my stated goal in life is to stop organized sports!

It might be similar, however just because someone is athiest doesn't mean they want to disprove all religion and stop all religious functions/activites, it simply means they don't think there is some divine presence in existance. Likewise, not all Christians try to push their beliefs upon others. Some do, but they are called fanatics.

It's more like joining a sports team for a code you don't actually enjoy. I see no harm to the Scouting chapter if you don't actively pursue an harassment policy towards their religious beliefs.

The Scout Chapter has a right to deny you entry for whatever reason they like (they don't like the look of you, you smell funny, homosexual, black) as long as they don't tell you. However its their own reputation they're soiling for discriminative behaviour, it's not illegal (except maybe if they denied a certain race) but it has its downside. However if homosexuals and athiests actively forced (no pun intended) their views upon the scouting chapter then they shouldn't be allowed entry.