Posted on 06/02/2003 6:39:40 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
"I don't think FR is for me. As much as I love to read the news from a right perspective, being the good little libertarian I am with my distrust and dislike of Clinton, big government, my desire for local control over community issues, my respect for the Constitution, etc, I don't have any bile or bitterness against fundies at all. Instead, I'm kinda sad, that the movement for all the government principles I hold dear is poisoned from within, by the rabid "Christian" fundamentalist right, paranoid and delusional, and particularly fearful, ignorant and hateful of gay people, it's really unpleasant to watch. I live in NY, where this apoplexy regarding sexuality is a weird oddity, completely disconnected from reality, reason, kindness, civility, etc. It's the Achille's heel of the GOP and in about 10 years, the party will be torn asunder for it. Very sad, when we have a real opportunity to reduce gov't...instead, because of the right's in-fighting and hubris, I see a very strong resurgence of bloated gov't and spending, ridiculous nanny stating from a well-intentioned, yes, but completely misguided left. The thing you fundies have to let go, (though I know you won't, it's so ingrained in your wet apocolyptic dreams, the Second Coming of Christ to save y'all, etc.) is that the future IS a pluralistic society, where, yup, even homosexuals are respected. The world is leaving you behind and y'all are scared, can't deal with, can't move on. So the world will move on without you. Most of us rational people move along with it. You won't. And you will hurt. And you will hurt the future of a Republican party dedicated to the ideals of the Constitution. "
Incestuals, bestials and ax murderers included. The BSA expects their members to be On Their Honor when it comes to the Oath and Law.
We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.
You take this to mean that they think unavowed homosexuals, incestuals, bestials and ax murderers are role models for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law? Thats silly, illogical and homosexual propaganda because of this:
Scouting's message is compromised when members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law.
Thats NOT avowed actions, thats not about secret actions nor even overt actions, its simple about ones behavior as it stands the test of the Oath and Law. It clearly says homosexuals CANNOT serve honorably in the BSA, avowed or not. If you think Baden-Powell ever conceived that homosexuality is compatible with Boy Scouting, that he thought homosexuality is morally straight or reverent in 1916 youre out of your mind.
BTW, nice rant against Conservatives and their desire to constitutionally use the 10th amendment. Oh and Ive never once used religion in any argument against the practice of perversion. NONE, but nice try.
This statement sounds exaggerated at best. But I do know that I would trust my daughter with a lesbian scoutmaster a lot more than I would trust my son with a gay male scoutmaster. There are deep-seated psychological reasons why the scandal was about boys and priests rather than girls and nuns.
I don't favor going out and persecuting gay men, not in the least, but welcoming gay males as BSA volunteers is just asking for trouble.
I asked him why he wanted to do this if he didn't have kids and he told of how much he loved scouting as a kid and wanted to do the same for others.
I don't know that I asked his sexual persuasion but I did tell him that if he messed around with my kid I would KILL him. Not even call the police just take care of it myself. He believed me.
Also he was a great leader, later got married and had a son that later will be a scout too.
As to the issue at hand, I don't particularly like the current method of providing information for a background check but can't see a real way to provide the desired level of security against pedophiles any other way. I guess I really prefer to have parents providing the leadership under the Safe Scouting/Youth Protection guidelines. Any outsider should be carefully scrutinized before being allowed to work with the youth.
Again, thanks for your Scouting service and well-supported information in this thread.
Hey Clint, I'm all down with this stuff, as well as eliminating the vestiges of an era gone by. It's not even that those vestiges are so important to me, it's that they're so CRUCIAL to you and your kin. It says a lot about what kind of people y'all are and the America you envision, (unrealistically), and it ain't pretty.
BTW, nice rant against Conservatives and their desire to constitutionally use the 10th amendment. Oh and Ive never once used religion in any argument against the practice of perversion. NONE, but nice try.
That's nice, Clint. I think you have a black heart, anyway. You don't even have the decency to denounce the ad hominems that are continually launched against me when this subject comes up. Again, it speaks volumes.
It's just a bulletin board, anyway. I think y'all take it WAY too seriously. Too viciously, also. *shrug*
That's right. And that supports my point.
You take this to mean that they think unavowed homosexuals, incestuals, bestials and ax murderers are role models for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law?
Nope. And that's not what I said. I said they can register and be leaders. Whether or not they can be adequate role models is a job for unit sponsors and Scouts' parents to determine. And as you discuss further down below, as long as their behavior is not known to the public or the Scouts, their role as moral example is not compromised. If I don't konw about their behavior, then they can be role models. But, if I know that the type of people you name, all criminals, are in fact engaging in criminal behavior, then I agree that they wouldn't be adequate role models.
So, let's look again at the BSA policy statement you accurately quote:
Scouting's message is compromised when members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law.
Thats NOT avowed actionsWhoops. Yes, it is. Every single time the BSA discusses this issue, they state "avowed homosexuals". Why do you think that is?
thats not about secret actions nor even overt actions, its simple about ones behavior as it stands the test of the Oath and Law. It clearly says homosexuals CANNOT serve honorably in the BSA, avowed or not.
No, you'r wrong on BSA policy. BSA National policy clearly and explicitly states that "avowed homosexuals" cannot serve as role models. If they meant all homosexuals, they'd say so. Why do they keep adding the word "avowed" in front of it? Why don't they just say, "homosexuals cannot server as role models"? Because as it states above, it's all about how the leaders present themselves to the youth. The moral example that a leader sets is how they present themselves to the youth. As the BSA makes plain they are aware, if a leader doesn't present themselves in a fashion that provides a proper example, then they can't be leaders. But, if they do present themselves as such, though both their words and behavior, then they can.
The BSA doesn't expect their leaders to be saints. We drink, we smoke, we swear, we might dress up in our spouses' clothing, we might express racial predjudice in a strong and vulgar fashion, we might belong to wife-swapping clubs, we might do who knows what? But if we don't do these things in front of the kids, or so that the kids find out about it, then we are acceptable as leaders to the BSA. Whereas if we do act in such a fashion in front of the kids, or talk about them, then we're out. Because the example we set, the lessons the kids take from us, depend on what the kids see and hear, not what we do that they don't know about.
If you think Baden-Powell ever conceived that homosexuality is compatible with Boy Scouting, that he thought homosexuality is morally straight or reverent in 1916 youre out of your mind.
I've already stated that I believe nothing of the kind. But in any case, what either you or I think on the matter is irrevelant. We're talking about a public example, not what's between a leader and his God (or wife, or boyfriend, etc.). As BSA policies plainly state.
I've made it a point to meet every coach that both my son and daughter had, shaking their hand, asking a couple of personal questions, showing up for a couple of practices unannounced and helping out, and generally letting them know that this kid had an interested father. I'm 6' 2" and 265 lbs., the rest of the message came though without being explicit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.