Posted on 06/02/2003 6:39:40 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Philadelphia’s Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council self-destructed last week. Its executive board voted unanimously to include "sexual orientation" in its nondiscrimination code. The outrageous move came after years of intense pressure from radical homosexual and atheist rights groups in the area and nationwide.
The Philadelphia Council is the third largest local council in the country, serving 87,000 boys and men. It is an unfortunate addition to a list of councils that have eagerly given the finger to the Boy Scouts of America and its associated moral codes. Last year, San Francisco and Boston became the first branches to reject the concept of “moral straightness.”
We must be reminded that the Boy Scouts are not an intolerant, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic bunch. In fact, the Boy Scouts have always taught tolerance and have been at the forefront of celebrating diversity. Since 1911, the BSA has reached out to disabled youth, racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans, and inner city children.
And Scouting has also taught the difference between right and wrong, between honor and indecency, between justice and perversity.
When it comes to a Scout troop, sexual orientation is an issue that goes beyond differences in skin color or economic status. It affects such matters as tenting arrangements and the development of pre-teenage masculinity in a close-knit group of boys and men. But the BSA’s position against homosexuality is not just an issue of moral principle in an effort to affirm the Scout Oath and Law, it is a serious safety effort to prevent cases of sexual abuse and harassment.
To the vast majority of Americans who understand the importance of Scouting in every community across the nation, preserving the traditional moral code of Scouting is a no-brainer. It is time for families in Philadelphia to show that they oppose the leadership of their local council by leaving the organization.
Furthermore, the BSA national office must entirely disconnect itself from the Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco Councils. And Boy Scout councils around the country must take notice that their entire mission is staked upon the moral character of the boys and men involved, and that if they sever those core principles from the program they will destroy the entirety of Scouting.
The pressures from the radical Left must be dealt with as well. As the Left has opened fire on the Scouts, the reaction of Americans has been interesting. I’ve heard some say that the Scouts don’t need to be defended because they are strong enough. Many would argue that ignoring the opposition is the best thing for the Scouts. Perhaps that would be true in a small-scale conflict, but those who lead the drive against the Scouts have proven their capacity for a dangerous perversion of morality when, in a hundred other scenarios they’ve struck deepest when decent Americans chose not to fight back. They didn’t fight back because they weren’t looking in the first place.
Now, America - now is a time to turn our sullen eyes on Philadelphia. Now is the time to awaken to the awful stench that arises from the moral relativism condoned by Boy Scout Councils in Boston and San Francisco. Now is the time to fight back and defend the Boy Scouts from further damage.
As an Eagle Scout and an assistant Scoutmaster, I cannot couch myself in the dark chamber of apathy as my organization is taken over by special interests whose political agenda contributes to a breakdown of character and the family. The Boy Scouts have the God-given right to establish standards for membership, and those standards have been highly respected for over 90 years. Citizens across America have the God-given obligation to see to it that the Boy Scout Oath and Law are upheld for another 90 years.
Hans Zeiger, 18, is an Eagle Scout and an outspoken advocate on behalf of Scouting with the Scout Honor Coalition. He is a Seattle Times columnist and chairman of Washington Young Americans for Freedom. He may be contacted at hanszeiger@yahoo.com.
"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? That’s 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.
That’s NOT avowed actions, that’s not about secret actions nor even overt actions, it’s 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 you’re out of your mind.
BTW, nice rant against Conservatives and their desire to constitutionally use the 10th amendment. Oh and I’ve 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 I’ve 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.
That’s NOT avowed actionsWhoops. Yes, it is. Every single time the BSA discusses this issue, they state "avowed homosexuals". Why do you think that is?
that’s not about secret actions nor even overt actions, it’s 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 you’re 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.