Posted on 06/10/2003 12:10:35 PM PDT by Polycarp
Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003
The Boy Scout oath makes inclusion of homosexuals and atheists oxymoronic
By Gary Morella
Regarding the CDT article, "Link with Scouts draws fire" (May 14), how can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality or be an atheist? A Scout takes an oath to be "morally straight" and to "do my duty to God," which makes the concept of homosexual or atheistic scouts oxymoronic.
To its credit, the concept of right and wrong still has a place in the Scouts. And nothing could be more wrong, in the view of the Scout oath, than allowing individuals who are publicly proud that they are homosexually inclined and consider sodomy a virtue, or who mock God by denying His existence, to be affiliated with the Scouts in any way. Such actions would be a bastardization of that oath.
Moreover, are we obliged to put our Scouts at risk because a radical minority, hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles, won't be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice? Are we obliged to do so until their demand for acceptance of their behavior by all aspects of society, including the religious community, is met under force of law, so as to shut up or lock up the opposition that they are quick to demonize for lack of rational arguments to back up their claims?
If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals? Why is there a National Man/Boy Love Association whose homosexual connections are immediately obvious by their name and through their literature?
Those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the absolutist moral position to the relative position that it can sometimes be beneficial. A controversial article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, which promoted child sexual abuse under the euphemism intergenerational intimacy, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near unanimous Congressional condemnation, furthered exactly this position.
The very real agenda of such advocates was shown on Fox's O'Reilly news show of August 1, 2001, when a representative from the Massachusetts gay and lesbian caucus argued that "don't ask, don't tell" also meant that the scouts can't talk about heterosexual relationships leading to marriage, and their leaders couldn't wear wedding rings, implying that somehow, such talk would offend the homosexual membership. In short, what he was advocating was that "don't ask, don't tell" not only apply to the unnatural acts of homosexuals that have been historically condemned by the vast majority of faith traditions, but also to natural marriage acts that aren't equally condemned. That fact offends homosexuals because "marriage" is not reserved for them; no matter that the concept of "homosexual marriage" is nonsensical since there is this slight problem with propagation of the species, given one of the primary definitions of marriage.
The Scout Handbook dealing with sexual responsibility (Chapter 14, pp. 376-378) would have to be rewritten. For example, what about the section where the Scouts are told that "sex should take place only between people who are married to each other," with abstinence until marriage being the priority concern in order to "give a child a close, loving family in which to grow"? The clear inference is that procreation is a function of "natural" monogamous marriage with a person of the opposite sex.
What about the section that deals with a Scout's responsibility to himself where he's told that "an understanding of 'wholesome' sexual behavior can bring lifelong happiness, with irresponsibility or ignorance causing a lifetime of regret?" What could be more irresponsible than the de facto promotion of homosexuality by such misguided policies as "don't ask, don't tell," given the evidence coming from many professional sources, including the Center for Disease Control that homosexual behavior is the most risky because of the unnatural acts involved? [See most recent HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report statistics for 2001.]
These are questions from responsible parents who recognize that the Boy Scouts put a premium on telling the truth. What we're witnessing is an attempt to subvert the very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual agitprop.
Accordingly, how can parents, who out of course of fulfilling their responsibilities to their children by justly discriminating between right and wrong behavior, feel comfortable with a policy that would allow homosexuals into scouting.
Similarly, how can they feel comfortable with allowing admission into the Boy Scouts atheists, a group that runs counter to a primary tenet of the Scout oath? Oaths used to mean something before political correctness was allowed to run amok.
Gary L. Morella is a Lemont resident.
Clearly one can mock that which exists that one does not believe exists.
One of the greatest unbelievers of them all, Bertrand Russell, admitted that rigorous logic would not permit him to deny God's existence as a proveable fact. Agnosticism was as far as careful thought would permit him to go.
At any rate, the Boy Scouts is founded on an implicit belief in God. To contend one should be allowed to participate while expressly rejecting the existence of God is PC illogic taken to extremes.
No. One can only mock those that believe. It is still not possible to mock that which is not. Mockery requires the appreciation of the target.
How about you providing compelling physical evidence that the earth was completely flooded, 100%, past the top of Everest, all at the same time? Oh, you can't. I'm sorry, but we all know there's not one single continuous alluvial layer blanketing the entire planet. Well, all of us but you.
Also, in addition to being ignorant of the history of the ground under your feet, you're ignorant of the rules of logic, since everyone also knows that one cannot "prove" a negative. When some posits that something did not occur, the proper refutation is to provide evidence to the contrary. After all, you said the Imaginary Flood happened. Where's your proof? A magic book? Don't make us laugh.
No. That's why one puts it forward as a disprovable theory. A theory has not yet been shown to be false. All that is needed to refute this simple statement:
There is no God
is to drag a God out from under whatever rock She might be hiding under and prove It exists. Bertrand Russell was merely stating the obvious, that you cannot prove a negative.
As for the rest, I never once said that atheists should be permitted to join the Boy Scouts. Last time I checked, the BSA was a private organization, with the freedom to set it's own rules of membership as it pleased. Atheists shouldn't whine about not being able to go camping or whatever since they're not willing to lie to join up. If the atheists have the equal freedom to create their own equivalent Boy Scouts Without God if they want, no one is stopping them.
I agree fully with those that support the Boy Scouts exclusionary stance. It's no one's business but theirs.
No. There is plenty of evidence of floods throughout history. There is no evidence of a global deluge. And of course there are many stories of mythological floods. Moses allegedly wrote the Pentateuch, but however was responsible simply lifted the Mesopotamian tale of Gilgamesh and altered it to suit his purposes. As serious a case of copyright infringement and plagiarism as any in history.
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.