L.A. CITY COUNCIL VS. BOY SCOUTS DECISION TO BOOT ORGANIZATION ADDS TO PROBLEMS.

Byline: Glen Jackson Local View

``OH, we got trouble, right here in River City,'' so sang Professor Harold Hill in the musical, ``The Music Man.'' The good professor should have come to Los Angeles.

The Daily News reported this past week that the murder rate has increased 25 percent this year. Gang activity, failing schools, drugs, illegitimacy and fatherless boys are just a few more of the troubles faced by citizens of Southern California.

With all the problems facing children and teen-agers in Los Angeles, the City Council has decided that the best solution to solving all of these problems is to boot out the Boy Scouts.

Led by Jackie Goldberg, the council voted 11-0 to exclude the Boy Scouts from its Police Explorers program and to block Scout troops from using city property for free.

I understand that the City Council is not blaming the Boy Scouts for all of the problems in Los Angeles. Yet, by choosing to boot the Scouts out, they are stating that the Scouts are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

It seems that Los Angeles needs all the help it can find, and removing the Scouts will only make matters worse.

I believe the City Council was wrong on four separate counts and should not only reverse its decision, but also actively promote the Boy Scouts.

First, the council was wrong based on their false view of discrimination. The council based their decision on the Boy Scouts' exclusion of homosexual scoutmasters and others who refuse allegiance to God. Goldberg stated, ``I do not do this with great joy. But when they chose to discriminate based on religion or being gay, we have to send a message that we will not tolerate discrimination.''

To these charges, the Boy Scouts plead guilty. But so what? Every organization in Los Angeles and every individual in Los Angeles practices discrimination on a daily basis.

By holding standards for the hiring of police and fire personnel, the city of Los Angeles discriminates against those who can't meet those standards.

By allowing honor societies, public schools discriminate against those who don't have good grades.

By refusing to hire convicted sex offenders as day-care workers, the city has a policy of ongoing discrimination, a policy most citizens support.

The council claims it will no longer do business with organizations that discriminate. The truth is, the City Council made their decision because the Boy Scouts discriminated against two politically protected groups.

Second, Goldberg said she has been a supporter of the Boy Scouts for 35 years, and I have no reason to doubt her. However, it points out the inconsistency with the council's decision. The Boy Scouts have not changed their position in nearly a century.

Scouting was introduced to America in 1910 by Lord Robert Baden-Powell. The Boy Scouts of America received a congressional charter in 1916. It was then that the Scout oath was formulated. ``On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help others at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.''

That oath has not changed in 85 years. From its inception, the Scouts have considered homosexual conduct as a violation to being morally straight. From its beginning, the Scouts have understood that a belief in God was the basis for a proper value system.

The Boy Scouts do not insist on any particular religion being stressed, only that it be God-based. Even Buddhism, which does not have at its core a personal God, is acceptable to the Scouts.

The Boy Scouts believed and practiced 35 years ago what they believe and practice today. The only difference is they didn't have to defend those positions in court 35 years ago. If Goldberg has supported the Boy Scouts for 35 years and they have not changed, why can't she support them today?

Third, the council was wrong based on the First Amendment. When our nation's founders wrote the Constitution, they sought to define the limits of government and the rights of the people, including that ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

While the Boy Scouts are chartered as an educational institution, it is very clear that their educational core is God-based. If atheists don't want their children influenced by God, why don't they simply start a Scouting program that doesn't pledge an oath to God?

Over the years more than 100 million boys have joined the Boy Scouts, including 4 million boys who participate in Scouting across the nation today. They all knew joining required an oath to God. No one made them join. They joined because they saw thought it was positive.

The City Council may not like organizations that promote a God-based world view, however, our Constitution allows it.

By demanding that the Boy Scouts change or cease, the City Council has proved itself to be much more intolerant than the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Finally, to say that severing ties with the Boy Scouts will have a positive influence on Los Angeles defies history and common sense. In a poll conducted by the Harris organization, 94 percent of those surveyed believed that the Boy Scouts are a positive influence on our nation's youths.

All over Los Angeles are boys and young men in need of positive role models, and the Boy Scouts are there. Tragically, the City Council has announced that it believes the Boy Scouts are a poor role model.

The Los Angeles City Council has placed before the people of Los Angeles a moral issue that might better clarify whose values they support. Do you hold the values of the City Council?

Or do you believe in the values instilled by the Boy Scouts? In answering that question, the people of the city may be doing nothing more than deciding the fate of a million young men and hence the fate of this nation.