Judge Napoleon Jones has become the first jurist in America to rule that a city must discriminate against a nonprofit organization for professing a belief in God. What would the Founding Fathers think? ... Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a "religious organization," and that by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore "advancing religion" and "religious indoctrination."
Pulliam, identified as a "lawyer," isn't especially honest. Judge Jones' ruling rests on the fact that the Boy Scouts themselves argue that they are a "religious organization. In a 1998 legal brief filed in Kansas by lawyers for the Boy Scouts, it was made clear that they are a religious organization:
"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."
Because the Boy Scouts are a "religious organization," they cannot be given any special favors by the government. They must be treated equally with all other organizations. Right now, the lease they have is a special favor - others don't get deals like this and there wasn't exactly any competitive bidding for the lease. Because of this, the lease must be invalidated.
What is so important about preventing kids from enjoying what the Boy Scouts have to offer?
Of course, no one has suggested that any child be prevented from joining the Boy Scouts. No one has suggested that the organization be forcibly closed. The argument is, rather, that the government should be prevented from helping the Boy Scouts in their religious and discriminatory pursuits. Pulliam knows this, therefore this comment should be viewed for what it is: an attempt to incite negative emotions by raising an issue that is irrelevant. Did I mention that Mark Pulliam is a lawyer?
This litigation must be seen for what it really is -- an attempt by a vocal minority to impose its religion-free beliefs on a predominantly religious majority of Americans.
No one is attempting to get any Americans to stop following their religion and joining with like-minded people to advance their religious causes. Instead, the argument is that the government shouldn't be involved with supporting those religious causes. Again, it must be assumed that Pulliam knows this. Have I pointed out yet that Mark Pulliam is a lawyer?
I'm hesitant about calling someone an outright liar, but I'm not sure what other label would more accurately describe Mark Pulliam. He argues as though the judge's decision would entail treating the Boy Scouts worse than other groups, which if true would indeed be something worth complaining about. In reality, though, the judge's decision is that the city should not treat the Boy Scouts better than other groups.
There's a big difference between the two situations. Pulliam wouldn't be the first to pretend that there is anti-religious bias behind the insistence that a particular church or religious group not get special treatment. Whenever someone loses their position of privilege, they whine and cry about how it's "unfair" and that they "deserve" to be treated special. Frankly, it's a perversion of the very notion of liberty and rights to complain about the loss of special treatment and a leveling of the playing field.
The Boy Scouts, as a private organization, have a right to discriminate against anyone and any group for any reason they wish. The Boy Scouts, as a religious organization, have a right to pursue their religious goals and teach their religious message to any boys who join them. As a discriminatory and religious organization, however, they do not have the right to get government aid to support and further their discriminatory and religious goals. Indeed, the government has a positive obligation not to get involved in such matters because the government exists for all citizens and should never send the message that such discriminatory policies or religious goals are favored.