Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/10/2001 12:19:44 PM PST by Khepera

Yes--the Boy Scouts are discriminatory and prejudiced. But what's wrong with that?

Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Levi Strauss--and now, apparently, First Interstate Bank has joined the pack--all have made a decision to withhold funds they'd previously earmarked for support of the Boy Scouts of America. Why? The Boy Scout's have a policy not to allow avowed homosexuals into their leadership. The banks charge that the Boy Scouts are discriminating, and they cannot support discrimination.

You know my views on homosexuality. I'm not going to discuss them here, per se. Instead, I want to encourage you to look at this issue from another direction. A subtle but significant element in this discussion is the implication that the banks, in their strong stand against discrimination, are taking the moral high ground on this issue. That's what I want to address, and my point is a very simple one: this is not about discrimination; it's about moral clarity. The fact is, both sides in this dispute, the Boy Scouts and the banks, are discriminating. Both are forced into making a choice dictated by personal conviction. Both choices make a moral statement. I want to make clear what that moral statement is in case you missed it in all the rhetoric.

I make the claim that both groups are guilty of discrimination. That's easy to substantiate by answering the simple question, "What is discrimination?" Webster's New World Dictionary defines discrimination as "the ability to make or perceive distinctions; perception; discernment. A showing of partiality or prejudice in treatment; specifically action or policies directed against the welfare of minority groups."

That's what the word means, and arguing from the basic meaning of words--upon which all coherent communication depends--then it's true, the Boy Scouts are discriminating. They are perceiving distinctions. They are exercising discernment. They are showing partiality in treatment, a type of prejudice--of pre-judging, if you will--against a group that is not a true minority group, but a group that is, by head count, in the minority. So these banks withdraw their support.

Yes, the Boy Scouts are discriminatory and prejudiced.

But what is the basis of this pre-judgment or discrimination? Is it skin color? Is it religious belief? Is it gender or ethnicity? No. The Boy Scouts have prejudged sexual conduct. They hold that sexual behavior has moral ramifications and that the practice of homosexuality is outside the pale of acceptable morality. More germane to this issue, it is inconsistent with the specific ideals that the Boy Scouts have championed for 89 years. To them homosexual conduct is a moral affront, a sexual perversion, and a Scoutmaster practicing homosexuality would be a blight on this organization that promotes virtue and character.

Yes, the Boy Scouts are discriminatory and prejudiced. But I need to add this, in that sense every moral distinction is a type of pre-judging or prejudice--let's be fair. It is prejudicial to say that adultery is immoral, or that lying is immoral, or that graft or ballot- stuffing, or assault is immoral. It is a pre-judgment, a prejudice, that one brings into the moral discussion. In other words, all moral distinctions are by very nature prejudicial. One might ask the question: are they appropriately prejudicial or inappropriately prejudicial? That's a valid question.

Of course in saying that a lot of people are going to feel very uncomfortable because they've been taught to believe that prejudice, all prejudice, all pre-judgment and discrimination, all discrimination, are inherently bad. I don't believe that. I think there is an appropriate place for certain kinds of discrimination and an appropriate place for certain types of pre-judging. In fact, all moral analysis carries with it an element of prejudice that is prejudging because one must bring, if one is to bring any kind of moral judgment (i.e., a judgment that something is right or wrong), some kind of prejudging into the arena before they can have any kind of discussion. One must have come to some conclusions about what the words right and wrong mean and how one can make that kind of distinction before he can discuss issues of morality in the public forum. Therefore, all types of moral discussion are by nature pre-judicial. They are pre judgments because one imports a moral standard that one may have for other reasons and those reasons may be valid, but they are standards that are brought into the circumstance and are not a result of the circumstance. That's why they are prejudicial.

And this brings me naturally to my next point. By censuring the Boy Scouts for their discrimination, these banks are making a discriminating decision themselves, and it cannot be otherwise.

Just as the Boy Scouts have said that in good conscience they cannot support a certain point of view, i.e. homosexuality--which Wells Fargo, et al, calls discrimination--these banks have said that they, in good conscience, cannot support a certain point of view, i.e. exclusion of homosexuals --and I call what the banks are doing discrimination, because that's what it is. They are perceiving distinctions; they are exercising discernment. They are showing partiality in treatment, a type of prejudice--of pre-judging, if you will--against a group that is not a true minority group, but a group that is, by head count, in the minority, the Boy Scouts. They are doing precisely and exactly and completely what the Scouts have done with regards to homosexuality.

Frankly, I think Wells Fargo is entitled to its discrimination. I don't think discrimination is a dirty word. There are appropriate types of discrimination and inappropriate types of discrimination. I don't think that the Boy Scouts or Wells Fargo, et al, are guilty of inappropriate discrimination in this case. But it needs to be pointed out that there is not one discriminating party here, there are two discriminating parties. And I refuse to let them slip away under the illusion that they've taken the moral high ground. They haven't. Their action is just as discriminatory as the Boy Scouts, no more, no less, so let's not cloud the issue with self-righteous accusations.

Instead, please allow me to bring clearly into focus what is really being said here by this action. I'm not arguing here about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, please note that. I am merely clarifying the nature of the decision that these business concerns are making. What are they really saying? They are saying that, when push comes to shove and they have to make a choice--as in this case--they choose to give their support to homosexuality rather than to the Boy Scouts.

One need not say homosexuality is immoral to see that the values of Boy Scouts as a group are more lofty than the values of homosexuals as a group.

One would hope that the banks wouldn't have to choose between the two, that they could say, "I believe in certain aspects of both groups, the high ideals of the Boy Scouts and also the rights of homosexuals not to be discriminated against." But circumstances have eliminated that option. Once the option is eliminated, it's interesting to sit back and see which group, when forced to, these businesses will side with. Circumstances have forced them to make a choice, and choose they did. To put it simply, Wells Fargo made a choice to throw in their personal and moral support, if not their financial, with one group over against another--the homosexuals over the Boy Scouts.

Now, that strikes me as a very strange decision. One might argue that homosexuals have a right to pursue the lifestyle of their choice. But why would one choose--if the choice is forced, as it is in this case--to stand with homosexuals rather than with Boy Scouts? One need not say homosexuality is immoral to see that the values of Boy Scouts as a group are more lofty than the values of homosexuals as a group. It seems to me that if one has to choose up sides he'd throw his lot in with the group with the highest ideals and the finest goals and objectives.

What kind of group is the Boy Scouts? These are people who pledge with an oath to help other people at all times, to keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. Their guiding law is to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Their daily goal is to do a good turn to another person. As a group they have a long history of building strong, capable leaders with personal integrity and moral strength.

What do we know about homosexuals as a group? In their sexual life homosexuals abhor restraint. As a group they are promiscuous. Sadomasochism for many is a way of life. When they enter politics they are aggressive, often offensive, frequently abusive and sometimes violent. They are unique as a social group for how thoroughly and rapidly they spread disease. They champion a lifestyle that a significant portion of the psychological community view as mal-adaptive and destructive. Please observe that I'm trying to keep moral judgment out of this; these are objective observations that can be supported by statistics.

Yes, there are great men who have been homosexuals just as there have been great men who have been Boy Scouts. But which of those great men who had been homosexuals would attribute their greatness to their homosexuality? Yet thousands of great men have looked back on their experience with the Scouts and have credited scouting with their success and valuable contribution to society as adults.

You tell me, which group does it make more sense to promote, if you must choose between the two, homosexuality or scouting? To put it simply, would you rather have your child in a bath house or a scout tent? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

It's about time to dispense with the self-righteous and high-minded language about discrimination; both sides discriminate. In this case, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Levi Strauss, and First Interstate Bank have all chosen to discriminate against the Boy Scouts and to link ideological arms with homosexuals. In so doing they're saying that the ideals of homosexuality are more worthy of support than the ideals of the Boy Scouts. It's just that simple.

The distinctions here are so astronomical that it makes the bank's decision morally absurd. But that's their discriminating choice. And it's not the moral high ground. It's about as morally confused, befuddled, and blind as one can possibly get.

At least, that's the way I see it.

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.