Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Bobanon]

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains, morally straight as To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

 

By that definition supplied from the 11th edition of the BSA handbook, you may not be a moral Scout if:

1. You cheat on your income tax return you are not morally straight;

2. If you drink heavily or take illegal drugs, (this one is a no brainer);

3. If you look the other way when other peoples rights are violated.

4. If you salt your language with foul language;

5. If you cheat others in business or any other dealings;

6. If you are a hypocrite, (you know who you are).

 

This list could be longer too.

 

I liked the defends the rights of all people in the above explanation of morally straight. To me that is the most important lesson to teach Scout is that it may not be always easy to take the high road, but that is the only road a virtuous person takes. Isnt the purpose of the BSA to help make young men into virtuous men? I think so.

 

[evmori]

Hunt,

You certainly have an unusual why of applying things.

 

My morality comes from my upbringing and the Bible. To me, homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. Why? The Bible, which is the Word of God, tells me so.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen]

Dan,

I strongly support the BSA position as well. If pressed to give reasons why I do, I would state the Constitution outlines the right for free association, and does not require any explanation or rationale for determining who is in the group.

 

I'm glad to see Bobanon thinks it is the most important lesson to teach Scouts not to look the other way, and to defend the RIGHTS of the BSA when the group's rights of free association are challenged.

[SaintCad]

"My morality comes from my upbringing and the Bible. To me, homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. Why? The Bible, which is the Word of God, tells me so."

 

 

While no one would dispute that the Bible is an admirable moral guide - even the BSA itself states that the Bible does not determine official BSA policy.

 

But even if the Bible were the guide, BSA allows a lot of immoral behavior (as per Leviticus). Even if you simply go off of St. Paul's epistles and ignore the Old Testament, there is a lot of immoral behavior such as women going hatless in public (Corinthians). So why is homosexuality not morally straight but other practices condemned in the Bible are?

 

By the way, the three criteria I set up for rationalizing the BSA's position was not just for Ed. I opened it up for anyone to see if there was a point to the argument I'm missing.

 

2 Sam 1:26

 

 

 

 

[DanKroh]

Brent,

 

As a big fan of the Constitution, I also support the LEGAL right of the BSA to free association. However, I have difficulty supporting a policy that discriminates against homosexuals on an ethical basis. As someone else said so succinctly: Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral (or ethical).

 

If being legal is good enough for you, that's fine for you. But pardon me if I require more to satisfy my personal sense of ethics.

 

Every attempt I have ever heard to rationalize this policy has been incredibly fallacious. And without a good rationale, I have difficulty reasoning that the rights of the BSA (an organization) should trump the rights of homosexuals (individuals).

 

And since the BSA claims to be non-sectarian, I agree that "the Bible tells me so" should not be an acceptable reason for forming BSA policy, either.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[BrentAllen]

Dan,

Which Constitutional rights of the homosexuals are the BSA denying?

 

The policy is good enough for me, because it is the policy of the BSA, and I choose to join this group - free association. If I did not agree with the policy, I would not join. Those are my ethics and morals.

 

The policy is not going to change, so I'm not sure why we are going through this verbal excercise. If the policy goes against your morals and your ethics, then you should have the convictions of your morals and ethics to leave the organization. Isn't that what we should be teaching our youth - stick to your convictions, even if the cost is high?

[SaintCad]

"The policy is not going to change, so I'm not sure why we are going through this verbal excercise."

Why not? Didn't the policy change once to exclude homosexuals when the LDS/Catholic Church demanded that BSA national policy reflect THEIR beliefs?

 

 

"If the policy goes against your morals and your ethics, then you should have the convictions of your morals and ethics to leave the organization."

So if something is wrong, either condone it or ignore it? What about working from the inside to CHANGE it? What you're advocating is that we should give up the a wonderful program like scouting because of one policy that should be determined at a Pack/Troop level rather than National level?

 

"Isn't that what we should be teaching our youth - stick to your convictions, even if the cost is high?"

How about "Change an unjust system"? I like that better.

 

[DanKroh]

Brent,

 

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I can't enumerate for you the legal basis for equal access and non-discrimination. But I think the inalienable right of pursuit of happiness should about cover it.

 

I agree that the policy is not likely to change in the near future. It is even less likely to happen if no one talks about it. Some of us find this discussion a worthwhile use of our time. If you don't think it is worthwhile, you are, of course, welcome to abstain from the discussion.

 

And when all else fails, fall back on the "if you don't like it, leave" ad hominem. Well, I think the PROGRAM is fantastic, so I'm not going anywhere right now. However, I fulfill the conviction of my ethics and morals by trying to educate people that homosexuals are not the demons that some people would like to make them out to be. Again, if it's a message you don't want to hear, you don't have to listen.

 

But you seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy on this forum trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't talk about, and what they should and shouldn't say while they are doing it. What is up with that?

[BrentAllen]

SaintCad,

What are you going to change - the 1st Amendment? As the Supreme Court has confirmed, the BSA is not doing anything "wrong." So unless you wish to change the 1st Amendment, you can either follow your convictions and leave, or decide the BSA program, even in its terrible state (according to you), is more valuable than your convictions on this issue.

 

Why should the BSA change the policy just because you think it is wrong?

 

"Didn't the policy change once to exclude homosexuals when the LDS/Catholic Church demanded that BSA national policy reflect THEIR beliefs?"

No - the position was clarified as homosexuals became more vocal and political.

 

SaintCad - from some of your earlier posts:

"I never demeaned, ridiculed, or berated the policy." Sounds like you are doing so now.

 

"I don't have an agenda, I merely want to know the reasoning behind this BSA policy."

Sounds to me live you have an agenda now - changing the policy - no?

[evmori]

SaintCad,

 

What is the point of your scriptural reference 2 Samuel 1:26? Are you inferring the Bible is endorsing homosexuality?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen]

Dan,

If Congress passed a law saying private organizations could not discriminate, that would be in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, wouldn't it?

 

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

ad hominen is defined by a personal attack on the messenger - please show me where I have do so.

 

If you don't like the content of my posts, follow your own advice.

[Trevorum]

Brent, I think you are missing the point. Just because something is LEGAL does not mean it is ethical. The history of our country is loaded with examples of this point.

 

Many people strongly believe it is unethical to unjustly discriminate against a class of persons solely on the basis of their biology. Race. Gender. Handedness. Sightedness. Sexuality. We believe that all persons should be treated with fairness and respect.

 

Other people strongly believe that their God has told them to discriminate against certain classes of people who look or act differently. No one will change your mind. We know that. It's the next generation we have hope for.

 

 

[DanKroh]

Brent,

 

I consider the "if you don't like it, leave" argument to be ad hominem in nature. You don't like my message, so you attack the validity of my membership. I gets old really fast, especially when it gets repeated ad nauseum.

 

You are perfectly free to talk about what ever you want, even when I disagree with you. I am not the one trying to shut down the discussion or question its validity because I don't like it. I merely suggested that if you don't find the topic worthwhile, you don't have to participate.

 

As far as your first amendment argument, I'm not arguing that any law be passed to force the BSA (or any organization) to do anything. I think the BSA should choose to change the policy because (in my opinion, and shared by many others) the current policy is unethical and contrary to the true underlying values of the scouting program.

[Bobanon]

I am not against free association per se. However, I do not support activities that discriminate against people. Espcially when it is discrimination based on unsound reasoning.

 

The BSA can stay it's current course and see further marginilization and a more and more hostile society. I hate seeing the BSA in such a position, and do not like Scouts seen by society as a bunch of little Eichmanns. The reasoning behind the current practices of barring homosexuals is due to the religious teaching of one religious tradition, namely the religions that started with Abraham.

 

The BSA should promote the highest ideals of American society, and shouldn't pick an choose which to support and which to ignore. The demographics of America are changing and have changed radically since the late 1970's. And it will continue to change through immigration, and no I'm not illuding to illegal immigration, but that too will have an impact.

 

Would we rather an organization that is seen favorable by the majority of Americans? Or do we want to continue where our boys are heckled such as being booed at the Democratic convention in San Diego. Boy Scouts should not be placed in a position where they are at odds with mainstream society. I know brent allen will post about the various state elections that voted marriage between a man and woman, etc as an example of just what the nation thinks as a whole. However, that is a somewhat skewed version since the issue of gay marriage became the deciding issue of the 04 election cylce, and the extremist of the religious right spend beaucoup bucks on advertising in an attempt to scare the voting public, which did happen. Are we a youth organization based on the highest ideals or are we a youth organization based upon the book of Leviticus and nothing more than little Klansman?

[BrentAllen]

The BSA respects the Constitutional rights of all individuals, including homosexuals. The BSA only wishes all individuals would return that same level of respect.

 

The ethics of the BSA is that homosexuality is wrong. Why join this group if you do not agree with its ethics? The Sierra Club does some great things, but I refuse to join because I do not agree with some of their policies and positions. I find other ways to participate in conservation.

 

This conversation always dwindles down to "why don't you start your own organization," which is answered with "it takes too much time to start from scratch." From my standpoint, as hard as it would be to start a new organization, it would be much easier to do that than trying to get the BSA to change. Do y'all think there is a large group inside the BSA who wants this policy to change?