Boy Scouts Reaffirm 'Traditional Standards'

[Dedicated Dad]

Boy Scouts Reaffirm 'Traditional Standards'

By Jason Pierce

CNSNews.com Staff Writer

February 06, 2002

 

(CNSNews.com) - The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Wednesday morning reaffirmed its policy that homosexuals cannot serve as Scout leaders.

 

The BSA's national executive board said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to 'local option' choices."

 

"The resolution that was heard at last year's annual meeting to open the leadership standards a little bit were not accepted," said Gregg Shields, spokesperson for the BSA. "The leadership standards that were in place still stand."

 

The BSA also reaffirmed their policy that avowed atheists would not be allowed to be Scout leaders.

 

According to the statement, "duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation, which has defined good character throughout the BSA's 92-year history."

 

The board referred the resolutions to the appropriate committee, which formed a diverse task force composed of chartered organization representatives to consider the resolutions.

 

The BSA has been the focal point of criticism from homosexual advocates since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June of 2000 that said the BSA, a private organization, had the right to choose who they want and do not want as leaders.

 

[FScouter]

Here's a link to the actual resolution:

http://www.bsa.scouting.org/press/020206/resolution.html

[Pioneer DC]

Thank God. The Boy Scouts often stand alone in their defense of positive morals and traditional values. They are a breath of fresh air in these days of "opinion poll politics."

[tjhammer]

In fairness, let me explain exactly what prompted this news release.

 

Nine metro area councils (from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles) joined together to officially submit a resolution calling for BSA national to change their policy to exclude anyone not opposed to homosexuality (see my other post on this subject http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=5417). Seventeen other councils, represented by current or past council presidents, informally joined in support of that resolution.

 

The National Executive Board accepted the resolution and referred it to the National Relationships Committee for consideration (the Relationships Committee is comprised of official representatives of the major religions that charter BSA units, and is the point of origin for the policy in question). The Relationship Committee then set up a special Task Force to research and consider the resolution that was referred to them.

 

They said that this "task force" was a very broad representation of adult leaders, chartering partners and parents... a diverse representation of all parties drawn from several geographies and demographics throughout the country.

 

This task force had 12 members. And was appointed by the very same people that established the policy in question. It seems awfully remarkable to me that those 12 people could be that diverse.

 

Nonetheless, the BSA's recent affirmation of their policy was based on the results of the discussion and recommendations by the Task Force.

 

As I have said in my other post, this policy has never been ratified by the 310 independent councils (though I suppose it need not be). It definitely has not been ratified or prompted by a plurality of the 900,000 adult leaders in the organization, or by the parents of the 3.2 million boys. So it's disingenuous to claim this is the mindset of the entire organization.

 

[cjmiam]

Well, nonetheless, they get my vote! Hooray for Heroes! I remember a bunch of southern states that once wanted to have slaves. Guess history tells the story of what happened with that one Just because some people think differently (even if they are large in numbers) doesnt make it right.

[Rooster7]

What is disingenuous? To me disingenuous is when people scream for change, get their day in court (so to speak), and then proclaim if - "if they had a different committee", "if they polled all the councils", "if they polled all the adult Scouters", etc., to cast dispersions on the process because the outcome did not go their way. There will always be an "if" - Hey, if all of the committee members were homosexuals then perhaps it would have been fair? BSA did much more than in should have to satisfy a few disgruntled councils. And as cjmiam noted, morality should not be determined by votes. As an organization, BSA does stand alone, but millions still support them.

[Dedicated Dad]

Morality by vote huh? Sounds like moral relativism to me. If 310 councils voted in favor of allowing those who practice incest to be members, I guess thats OK too?

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

I didn't know we could vote for what is moral & what isn't! If we could, think of the ramifications. Beastiality might be considered moral.

 

I don't think morality is the issue. I think the issue is how many institutions can the homosexual agenda bash because they can't participate. Well guess what, being able to participate in everything isn't a right. Certain organizations have membership requirements. There is a club in my city called the University Club. The only membership criteria is you must have graduated from a university. If you are black & graduated from a university then you can be a member. If you are black & didn't graduate from a university, then you can't become a member. Simple as that. There is no difference between this requirement for membership and the BSA requirement for membership.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[tjhammer]

As mentioned in my other post, I completely support the Supreme Court decision... that decision was rendered on free association, and the ability of private organizations to set membership standards. It would have been a sad day for the BSA and thousands of other organizations if that case had been lost.

 

cjmiam -- you raise the issue of slavery, and it is a good parallel for this debate (though I respectfully suggest you're confused about which role you are currently playing). The South fought the Civil War for states rights, and that was high ground from which to fight. But the underlying issue, slavery, was morally reprehensible to the rest of the country. And the battle of states rights became forever linked in history to slavery.

 

The BSA fought the battle in court for free association, and that too was high ground from which to fight. But unfortunately we now run the risk of that forever being linked to homosexuality.

 

Your reference to slavery is even more appropriate than just the parallels of the battle lines. Many in the South actually found moral standings for owning slaves... they believed it was their "God given right" to do so, and "blacks were impossible of being moral creatures in God's eyes". But others in the country simply could not understand that perspective, and ultimately it took a war and a subsequent century for the majority of America to find blacks were not immoral people. Morality is completely relative.

 

[Rooster7]

tjhammer,

 

In regard to your comparision, there are two major differences that you are not mentioning.

 

1) Homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical trait.

 

2) There never was a basis to the claim that blacks were immoral (Biblical or otherwise).

 

You may be interested to know, that many African-Americans find this comparison insulting for the exact reasons I just listed.

 

You said - Morality is completely relative.

 

If this pretence is true, explain to me how rape or pedophilia is deemed immoral? Is it completely subjective?

[tjhammer]

Are you suggesting there was never a basis in the Bible to support slavery?

 

>Behavior, not a physical trait

 

Of course both sides of that issue have volumes of scientific data that supports their respective sides of that debate or discredits the other, and both sides will claim that all of the others data is ultimately non-scientific or presupposes the outcome. Without drawing into those statistics and the analysis, can I just ask: Rooster, I'm guessing you don't really know any gay people, except from afar. If your son, or nephew or niece were to reveal their homosexuality (calm down Rooster, I don't mean its possible your son could be gay), I bet your perspective would change some. And I guarantee they would tell you that being gay was not a choice they ever remember making, it was just how they felt from the earliest days of their sexual awareness.

[sctmom]

Many Southerners tried to justify slavery as "taking care of them". If we just let "them" be they would be wild animals, sleeping with whoever, killing each other, stealing, etc. Even if you taught them a trade they wouldn't know how to handle their money. You can't train them right.

EVERYBODY knew this. And if you CHOOSE to teach a black person (free or not) to read and write you were committing a CRIME!

 

Many Southerners still justify slavery as "just one of those things". Still consider blacks as immoral.

 

 

Who deems rape or pedophiles as NOT immoral? Who other than the ones committing the crime think it is okay? Even some of them know it's wrong. This is not a valid comparison.

 

[cjmiam]

Please, I hesitated using that example for just this reason. I only used it because it provided a way to show that large numbers don't necessarily equate to what is correct or the right way of doing things. I didnt mean it to bee seen as a comparison for morality.

[tjhammer]

I only used it because it provided a way to show that large numbers don't necessarily equate to what is correct or the right way of doing things.On this statement, we completely agree.

[Rooster7]

Does the bible mention slavery? Yes. Does it endorse it? No.

 

If my son told me he was gay. I would pray for him - a lot, just as if he came to me and confessed any other sin. If homosexuality is not a behavior, then what is it? Is it a religion? Is it a physical trait? I think one has to agree that is a behavior.

 

"Who deems rape or pedophiles as NOT immoral? Who other than the ones committing the crime think it is okay? Even some of them know it's wrong."

 

sctmom, I'm not the one that claimed morality to be relative. If you agree that morality is relative (such as tjhammer proclaimed), then you should be able to provide a logical answer to that question. Your answer infers that one should know intuitively that that these behaviors are immoral. Problem is, that answer is inconsistent with the claim that morality is relative.