But the governments of the Soviet Union and PRC did not/do not abide by those morals themselves. There was/is wholesale disregard of human rights in those regimes. Gulags. Forced abortion. Murder. No private property rights. No freedom of speech or of association or of religion. Sorry, but it is a cruel joke to use them as evidence of moral societies, based on stated “laws” that were just wallpaper. Check out also today’s Wall Street Journal article on churches in China for additional info.

As far as the Scouts go, while the Declaration (do you mean the one in the Bylaws?) and all other religious facets are “consistent” with majority faiths, I am challenged to find “many” faiths that it is inconsistent with. They go out of their way to be nonsectarian. The faiths that in fact have religious awards for Scouts include Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Meher Bab, Unity Churches, Salvation Army, Zoroastrian, . . . . (want a website?). I don’t see how “many” are excluded. I think Supreme Being is all that is required to be acknowledged.

But whether Wiccans are excluded is irrelevant, also. The Scouts remain a private organization. My point was that their enemies “paint” them as a religious organization in order to further limit their activities under the establishment clause.

I’ll stand by the rationale for the founding, as stated in the Declaration itself. And, yes, I understand the breaking away from CofE as a factort. The underlying justifying principle, based on unalienable rights endowed by a Creator, remains, tho.

I’d say that the history in Russia and China shows that the basic day to day morals are the same, regardless of the nature of the religion of a society. Murder, theft and such are pretty universally condemned in all societies when it comes to humans living their daily lives. Leaders vary, of course, with all countries having some good and some less so.

You may wish to reconsider your argument about the basis of the removal of the US from the British Empire. The head of that empire was also the head – “Protector of the Faith” – of the Church of England and the traitors removed that religion as the official state religion of their colonies. he empire also had mandatory representation for that religion in law making.

Other colonies, like India, left the empire simply using human rights and a desire for local government. Still others left the empire and retained the official state religion.

Since the declaration required by the Boy Scouts of America is consistent with the beliefs of the majoriy religions in the US it seems pretty unlikely that it will marginalise them, at least in the short term.

“to paint the Scouts as a religous organization” isn’t necessary. All it takes is knowing that the required declaration excludes those of many religions from membership, by requiring a declaration contrary to their faith. Do you agree that it does have a requirement with that effect?

Since the original post here is a day+ old, I’ll take the opportunity to drift our discussion a bit farther afield. 😉

You refer to the USSR, India, and China as examples of non-single-creator moral teaching frameworks. The history, in practice and in fact, of the atheistic pair of those countries (USSR, China) more likely proves the point that morality (in practice) requires theistic belief.

But be that as it may, the founders of the US acted on the principle that they had the right to break away from the Crown because they held certain truths to be self-evident, including those unalienable rights that are endowed in men by their Creator. It is because those rights have a higher source than man himself, that the founders were justified in the revolution. The Boy Scouts of America, in their recognition of a Supreme Being (as they state it, I believe) go no further than that, really along the lines of the Declaration of Independence (for those readers that didn’t recognize my reference above). So to paint the Scouts as a religous organization (and then, once in that category, then marginalizing them along the lines that many seek for faith-informed discussion and action in today’s society) is unjust, and contrary to the fundamental defining idea of this country.

RIGHTS I AM NOT AFRAID OF LOSING
Probably more importantly, even though I am not afraid of losing my right to marry or hold hands or have sex or whatever, as a “equality minded individual,” it really rankles me to hear these things called a “privilege.”

PRIVILEGES I AM AFRAID OF LOSING
Above, I referred to employment law — state-mandated / forbidden stuff. This is, of course, interrealted with the issue of what benefits an employer will choose to offer me. For better or worse, these benefits are not “rights” in the US. They are considered to be consideration bargained for at arms length between the parties. As such, privilege, while maybe not the best descriptor, is a fair word to use here. Fair to use, but very bad from a p.r. angle. You imagine that the shameful talismanic p-word will shame the devil out of employers. On the other hand, I think greater repetition of the p-word in this context will shame the benefit privileges right out of everybody’s employment package (tenured profs excluded, of course).

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
I don’t know if this is better regarded as a right or a privilege. I didn’t know in lawschool when I had to read Jaycees and those other cases and I don’t know now. Actually, this was the reason I got involved in these gay posts, because I am so conflicted about freedom of association. At any event, when an ambivalent guy like me keeps hearing of freedom of association as part of a set of “privileges,” it gives me great pause about anything else the author is saying. Since the debate in this area is active and nuanced, maybe both “rights” and “privileges” are too conclusory here in their respective ways.

Privileges are generally optional and not fundamental rights or equality. They are often granted to favor certain desired behaviors. For those reasons I think that calling the benefits linked to homosexuality or some homosexual practices privileges is starting off with wording which undermines the case being made.

I take your point about privilege rather than privileges but you’ve still lost before really getting started because the meaning is there, regardless of your understanding or explaining of how you’re distinguishing between the two – simply by having to explain it, you’ve lost most people already, however common that usage is iin assorted civil rights groups, because the target audience is not within those groups and doesn’t share their defined usage and assumptions.

Since I think many of those things are rights and also don’t want to the case undermined, the effect of the wording is to cause me to want to be dissociated from the arguments.

rodander,

Certainly there is much good which has been and continues to be done by the Boy Scouts. “great young men, teaching conservation and appreciation of the outdoors, and, yes, in moral formation” are things I’d agree are good, pretty much universal and clearly rational.

Linking moral formation to a creator is more problematic, for there are so many counter-examples of moral teaching which don’t have them flowing from a single omnipotent creator. It’s only necessary to look at the former Soviet Union, India and China to find moral teachings, including such things as condemnation of murder, theft and breaking stable relationships. Condemning those things does seem to be pretty universally accepted in human societies. This is a point where those who have been taught morals in the context primarily of the Ten Commandments flowing from a religious basis seem to have difficulty, understandably enough, for it’s contrary to their, and my, upbringing.

Of course, I wouldn’t ban the Boy Scouts. I just recognise that parts of the teachings they have are based on the religious beliefs of their founder and would have them treated like any other groups teaching and requiring specific religious beliefs as a required part of the activity.

In brief response to James Day, I think that to the extent that the Boy Scouts have been “favored”, it is because many have seen the results of their work in forming great young men, teaching conservation and appreciation of the outdoors, and, yes, in moral formation including recognition of a Creator (of whatever flavor). Perhaps “society has so far been made up mostly of people whose religious views agree with its positions”. But maybe those principles are objectively Good and True, which is why they have worked. And maybe that is a good thing, and something worth favoring.

And I agree with James that a state can craft a marriage law in a way that it serves purposes such as promotion of chiildren more efficiently. But must it, constitutionally? Must it look into the fertility of a hetero couple before awarding a marriage license, if it denies same-sex marriages? Really?

In brief response to Jens: By stating that opponents “tend to be so for predominantly non-rational reasons such as fundamentalist religious beliefs”, I fear you have fallen into the trap of disqualifying a view because it may be religiously based (not to mention belittling it as “non-rational”, or “indadmissible in US law”). I smell some intolerance of diversity in that. Listen more closely to positions of others, to see why they think as they do, and perhaps you will understand (while not agreeing) and even respect such views. Which I think is ultimately what both sides ultimately want here.

And yes, I understand that this is Prof. Lessig’s blog. It is his toy, not mine. No disservice intended to him, if that is what I did. I do feel free to agree or disagree with what is posted here, and I very much appreciate the tone and thought behind the comments on my comment. I will endeavor to do the same.

– Amantha

I would like to read more but do not have easy access to a bookstore where I live. Ordering books and having them delivered to Africa is too expensive for me – I rarely do it.

I am eager to read more now, but I’m restricted to the first chapter.

Although I will likely track down and buy a copy of your book when my spouse and I travel to Canada/California this summer, I would be more inclined to do so if we all were allowed to continue reading what you have presented via PDF. Last summer I did the same with “Free Culture” – that is, I read a large chunk of it before traveling to North America and purchasing a copy.

It’s disappointing to see socially charged material intended to change the world for the better be restricted in regards to distribution. You obviously have a message you want voiced and it would be nice to see that message flow as unencumbered as possible.

Peter.

Your observation is quite incorrect. I did not rely on only
one statement to form my opinion. I did read both Ian Ayres’
and Jennifer Brown’s comments and immediately recognized
what they are trying to do. I doubt that you will have time
to study semiotics but semiotics taught me few things on how
people can influence others through the manipulation of
information (in semiotics, the formal word is “sign”).

While I understand that their desire is to increase
fairness in some circles in our society, their method
raises some ethical issues that some or many heterosexuals
will not find acceptable.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.