The Boy Scouts of America is freshly embroiled in yet another attack on its values. This time, the assault comes from an atheist stripped of his scouting status after he refused to acknowledge a higher being or Creator.

The problem with this lawsuit is that it is the essence of closed-mindedness — that just because the Boy Scouts don’t have the values of a certain sub-group, be it atheists this time (or gays the last), dissidents seek to indulge their affinity for belief imperialism in an attempt to change the values of the organization. Indeed, the Boy Scouts of America is freshly off an attack on its values from numerous gay groups that claimed that the private organization must accept gay troop leaders.

That’s the crux of the argument, however: The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization and it can choose to admit or exclude as it sees fit. Although this may be reprehensible to some sectors of American society, the acceptance of the scouts’ ability to manage their own organization, to not have the government interfere in their doings, is a crucial right given to (all) private organizations.

Nevertheless, the Boy Scouts won the legal battle, challenging the decision of a lesser court and bringing it to the Supreme Court. But the threat of belief imperialism is not going to die off in the foreseeable future.

In June 2000, the high court barred gays from being troop leaders, saying that this would infringe on the scouts’ First Amendment rights, namely, of “”the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”” I know some people like to tarnish documents written by “”stupid old white men,”” but there’s a reason they have stood the test of time for over 200 years: They apply to everyone.

The beauty of the First Amendment, sometimes to the disgust of some: American citizens can’t cherrypick the constitutionally given rights they want to give to groups they may oppose; they apply to all groups at all times.

Indeed, the challenge of the Boy Scouts by the self-proclaimed atheist, 19-year-old Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, has no legal footing. But the issue is more a social one than a legal battle, mainly because the legal issue is closed. What this Eagle Scout and his lawyer have failed to comprehend is the almost 100-year-old Scout Oath, which starts off, “”On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.””

Furthermore, investigating the requirements for joining the Boy Scouts, as explained in the Boy Scouts Official Joining Requirements, the line, “”understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath or Promise, Law, Motto, and Slogan, and the Outdoor Code,”” leaps off the page. Of particular interest: “”agree to live by the Scout Oath”” and “”Law.””

The Scout Oath, which scouts are expected to repeat hundreds of times while a scout, contains two very important phrases: “”to God”” and “”obey the Scout Law.””

Let’s start with the former. Now, for me, saying “”do my duty to God”” means that a scout would obviously be lying not only to himself but also to the Boy Scouts of America if he joined the organization, knowing full well he did not fit all the requirements — namely, that of following the Scout Oath. And coupled with the phrase, “”On my honor,”” what honor is existent when a scout is lying to himself every time he recites the very important Scout Oath?

Secondly, the Scout Law sheds some light on the increasingly clear picture. Examining the explanations of Scout Law, found on pages 47 through 54 in the Boy Scout Handbook, one comes across the phrases of “”A Scout tells the truth. He is honest.”” Isn’t it a bit strange that when a scout is expected to be honest and tell the truth, an atheist scout who has lied to himself and the organization since he joined wants to get away with criticizing the Boy Scouts of America for being true to its values?

Again referring to those pages in the scouts’ own handbook, there’s an interesting little tidbit: “”A Scout is reverent toward God.”” I’m not even really sure how the scouts can be anything but crystal clear in this statement — if you are a scout, you must be “”reverent toward God.”” It’s rather simple really: If you don’t fit the requirements of joining, you are entirely free to join another organization.

But the jackpot is in a phrase that shortly follows: “”[A Boy Scout] respects the beliefs of others.”” An almost pantheistic strike-down of the current complaints lodged against the Boy Scouts, this phrase is absolute gold. It seems almost oxymoronic and void of any consistency that a scout who is taught to respect differences in beliefs will criticize the organization on the basis of a difference of beliefs, not try to change them.

Like it or not, we live in a world of competing beliefs. But what makes us American is that we don’t try to force our beliefs on others. Usually we equate that with fascism, but why does the politically correct crowd defend belief imperialism when it applies to groups they support and not for groups they oppose?

Again, if I’m not mistaken, the requirements of becoming a Boy Scout should filter out all atheists who do not agree with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. And if these beliefs or values do not fit yours, the solution is simple: Find another organization. That’s the beauty of freedom.

The closing argument in this debate comes fairly and simply down to freedom. If someone is offended by the Boy Scouts’ message, they are free to join another scouting-type organization; they can join other groups of similar values or possibly start a competing organization if they are so inclined. (This is exactly the idea behind the Girl Scouts.)

While the Atheists of America and the Gay Scouts of America would be organizations that dissenters could establish, they should refrain from trying to change the values of the long-standing private organization, just like they wouldn’t want belief imperialism imposed on their values. For the beautiful nature of America is the result of our differences, not our uniformity. And what a beautiful America we live in.