We were all moved by the news that four Boy Scouts were killed when a tornado hit their camp. What was remarkable was the heroism and responsibility the other boys showed. If the adults in New Orleans had behaved half as well as these boys in Iowa we could have avoided much of the trouble down there. Bad things can happen to good people. What matters is what they do next.
Many in the PC world have demonized the Boy Scouts and tried to push them out of the public square. Such people cannot abide the diversity of someone having an opinion or a world view that differs from theirs.
The Boy Scouts represent some of qualities that made America great. They teach boys to be self reliant, disciplined and honest. Why do organizations like the ACLU - the guys who eagerly defend the rights of terrorists and people with admitted hatred for the United States, insist on attacking the Boy Scouts? It goes to show their true animus.
People have the right to association. Liberals defend that for every group except those who espouse traditional American values.
Scouting has contributed significantly to our county. This tragedy clearly demonstrated the value of Boy Scout training in helping these boys behave like good men.
Liberals claim that they dislike the Scouts because they do not want to allow gay Scout leaders. The Scouts’ position makes logical sense. I feel the same way about letting a straight man act as a Girl Scout leader in remote camps or consider the problem we had with priests and altar boys. Most people will behave ethically, but these are very exploitable relationships. While no amount of care will avoid all incidents, organizations have a responsibility to exercise reasonable diligence. You can be sure that the same liberals who want to relax the standards would be thick as flies on any incident facilitated by their insistence on inclusiveness.
But I don’t think it is really about this one issue. It goes beyond that. People who themselves are undisciplined and flexible with their morality resent those who don’t share these flaws. Boy Scouts are a constant rebuke to those who claim screwing up is just a natural part of life. Refusing to be a victim offends those who find victims in every situation.
Below s is the Boy Scout Oath and you can follow this link to find out what other things some people find offensive
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
If you don’t like this, you don’t have to participate. Just let others alone. Your country will be better off.
Posted by Jack at June 14, 2008 2:21 AM
Well said. Very well said,Jack.
What wonderful rhetoric…but empty rhetoric, no matter how wonderful, is still empty.
The Boy Scouts had training. Not only that, but these were in large part Scouts who were advanced well beyond the norm, and could be expected to react as they did.
Unfortunately, you expect that everyone should act as they did - but people who do NOT have the training in emergency response and teamwork and have NOT had the opportunity to learn the discipline to the level of these advanced Scouts are NOT going to react as well as they did.
And that’s why you are blaming others for being victims.
That’s been my experience with libertarians and many conservatives - they blame victims for being victims (just like Jack who blames the victims of Katrina for their own woes)…just like the ‘Reverend’ Parsley who blamed New Orleans’ plans for a ‘gay parade’ for Katrina’s devastation, and ‘Dr. Laura’ who blamed Gov. Spitzer’s wife for his infidelity.
I just wish that conservatives would learn to get past “let’s blame the victim” to the FAR more professional “let’s fix the problem and NOT the blame”.
If you’re going to have a discussion about the ACLU and the Boy Scouts of America let’s make it an intelligent one. Frankly, Jack’s piece is not a very good start to that end. Read the ACLU’s Amicus Brief here,
In that brief, this is what the ACLU had to say about the Boy Scouts, “The purpose of the Boy Scouts is to promote the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, and to teach patriotism, courage, self-reliance and kindred virtues. Its mission is to instill values in young people and prepare them to make ethical choices.” Like Jack says, the ACLU obviously loves to attack the Boy Scouts.
The Amicus Brief will explain the case, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.
It is also interesting to note that the ACLU was joined by 18 of the nation’s leading civil rights groups, who “urged the Court to rule that Boy Scouts of America cannot discriminate against gay people. The nation’s premiere African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American and women’s organizations joined leading First Amendment advocacy groups on the brief in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale.”
This clearly was not just the ACLU against the Boy Scouts.
BTW, the Boy Scouts pervailed.
Jack says, “Liberals claim that they dislike the Scouts because they do not want to allow gay Scout leaders.”
Not only is that patently false, but it is an ignorant thing to say. What “liberal group claims they dislike the Scouts?” The ACLU and the other 18 groups that signed on the the Amicus Brief said they disliked one specific policy of the Scouts not the entire organization.
People are people. You will always have the criminal element in any large crowd. I don’t blame New Orleans for that.
The problem New Orleans had was a complete break down of the leadership that was charged with their safety and evacuation. In the US that falls on City and State governments that create evacuation plans they are to follow in an emergancy.
New Orleans had a nearly illiterate (democrat) mayor who, with hundreds (if not thousands) of school buses at his disposal and days before the storm hit….did not read his own cities evacuation plans or send those buses in to bail out the poor.
And a Governor (democrat) who was afraid to move lest she “do the wrong thing”. But they both spent hours posing in front of the national Cameras for days. Even when she ordered the evacuation she had to make sure she loudly stated that it was at the request of George Bush, obviously if the storm missed New Orleans she wanted to be able to blame Bush for pushing her to evacuate.
Few people remember that George Bush called that governor up and pressed her to get those people out and only then would they agree to evacuate. Had Obama done it instead of Bush, the left would still be shouting his praises for all the people he “saved”. Bush got no credit.
Some of those scouts behaved well, some probably didn’t…and we aren’t going to hear about that. I’m all for honoring those who did and holding them up as a standard. We should all try to face the trials and tribulations of life with honor, dignity, and personal courage.
Hurricanes and Tornadoes are not the same type disasters.
I have been through both.
Tornadoes are localized. Large F5’s can devastate a swath a mile wide and several miles long. An outbreak may devastate multiple small areas. Tornadoes last for minutes. Most simply strike a few homes and are gone, like the one that killed the boy scouts.
Hurricanes devastate large areas, several counties, square miles of devastation. They spawn multiple tornadoes as they make landfall. They last for several hours, and the worst effect is flooding and wind driven surge which makes areas inaccessible for days.
Comparing the boy scout deaths with New Orleans is bizarre and out of touch with reality. Many people did respond heroically in New Orleans. It’s sad you are unaware of that.
I wanted to further address your adulation of the Boy Scouts. I have nothing in particular against them, but get leery at overly praising them.
I should confess, I never was a Boy Scout. I had a cousin who was.
I don’t believe Boy Scouts are great teachers of morality. Some scouts love evil pranks and criminal activity. I met them as a kid. Most scouts just enjoy the camping and outdoor activities, which looks like great fun. Most older boys become rather embarrassed by the rather gay looking outfits.
I think the scouts, as a private club can teach whatever they want and screen whomever they like.
The intolerance of gays lends them to be compared to Hitler Youth, fairly, or unfairly.
The distinction between gays and pedophiles should be important to them, though the signal they send is simple intolerance. Not a particularly good lesson. If they believe that many pedophiles are not drawn to them, like coaching and teaching, they are deceived.
I think parents would be well advised this organization is not a substitute for deep parental involvement.
Jack, your article hides the legal controversies behind the BSA (Boy Scouts of America). Was this omission deliberate, or an oversight?
As recently as 2004, the government was involved in extending preferential treatment to this organization that discriminates against gays, atheists and agnostics. Additionally, though now resolved, government funded groups were supporting the BSA materially.
If discriminating organizations like the BSA want to be left alone to freely associate, they need to remain entirely and completely free of government tax dollar subsidies direct or indirect, and refuse governmental preferential treatment not extended to other private organizations and entities.
Personally, I look upon the BSA as a very mild form of Hitler Youth organization brainwashing young minds to hate gays, religions other than their Christianity, and atheists, as well as critics of American politicians and government. In these regards, they hold the same values as the Hitler Youth organizations of Nazi Germany.
But, in America, they are free, as a private organization, to preach such hate and discrimination. That is one of the great strengths of America. They are not free however to participate in or receive special dispensation from taxpayers who disagree with them. That is the problem with all such organizations. They cannot help but overreach to extend their influence over those they hate or discriminate against. In America they get sued and lose for their overreach. And that too is what makes America one of the greatest nations under rule of law, not under the rule of the BSA, KKK, or Bush Youth organizations.
Jack: Wouldn’t it be ironic if the scout or leader that was quickest to react and lead the rescue efforts was a closet gay?
In my opinion, you have belittled the actions of these scouts and their leaders by taking advantage of this tragedy to promote your personal philosophy.
You could have praised these scouts for their bravery and their quick response to the tragedy and saved the contraversy for another time.
Your philosophy has prevailed in the courts but, IMO, you couldn’t resist using this tragedy and those who died to gloat.
You should have sent this article to the trash bin, the scouts and your country would be better served.
Thanks for taking an issue no one really cares about, blowing it up into an imagined liberal crusade, and insulting the memory of all those that died and lost homes in Katrina all at once. I guess the Boy Scouts never taught you anything about respect.
“the PC crowd … cannot abide by the diversity of the boy scouts” (?)
Since when is banning certain people because of their sexual orientation an act of diversity? Do we misunderstand such groups as the KKK or the National Socialists? Maybe they were being diverse and us in the PC crowd just don’t understand it.
I personally go back to that ancient christian precept that god rewards the good and punishes the evil. May the tornado is an act of god.
Charles, Christians have never supported gay sex and have always considered it be deviant behavior.
You would support the right of Muslims to have organizations that do not include non believers but you do not permit the boy scouts to exclude what they consider to be sexual deviants?
They have every right to do so. Unless the lefts continues to erode our rights in their frenzy of blind political correctness.
In the end, both extremes take away the rights of those in the middle. Let the boy scouts be boy scouts and let Gays have their gay scouts.
Stephen L said: “Charles, Christians have never supported gay sex and have always considered it be deviant behavior.”
You mean except for all those Christians, right? There are throngs of them, you know.
BSA a mild form of Hitler youth, I don’t think so. My Christian beliefs tell me to love the sinner but hate the sin. DRR, you sit and condem a group because they try to teach morals, I don’t care what your beliefs are I won’t condem you for them maybe I won’t agree with you but I won’t condem you. I think in this country we need a little more morality and a lot more morales tought in our schools. Maybe we wouldn’t have any more shootings in our schools. Yes and even go back to spanking our children if they get out of line. I for one are glad there are groups out there like the BSA who are trying to instill morals in our young people. Some of the things I read on these blogs I assume are from highly educated people, sometimes it makes me glad I never went to College.
Personally, I look upon the BSA as a very mild form of Hitler Youth organization brainwashing young minds to hate gays, religions other than their Christianity, and atheists, as well as critics of American politicians and government. In these regards, they hold the same values as the Hitler Youth organizations of Nazi Germany.
As someone who participated in Boy Scouts from 2001-2007, I can tell you that I have never experienced anything of the sort you mention. I joined scouting mainly because I enjoyed the outdoor activities. I think my vantage point allows me to be a better judge on the activities of Boy Scouting than someone who has likely never actually participated in any scouting events, but rather forms opinions based on just what he reads/hears in second-hand accounts. Up until a few years ago, I was actually unaware that the Boy Scouts had an official policy barring homosexuals. In fact, while I was there, the topic of homosexuality was never mentioned, and religion’s only appearance was in the fact we met in a congregationalist church and there was a poster explaining the “Religious Emblems” Program. This program allows religious organizations to award badges that may be worn as a part of the scouting uniform. Practically every imaginable religious organization has their own award, from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism. I was the only scout in my troop who pursued one of these emblems; because I was an agnostic at the time, I pursued the award from the Unitarian-Universalist Church that my father belonged to. In no way shape or form was I ever brainwashed “to hate gays, religions other than Christianity, and atheists”.
Don’t misread me, I firmly believe the policy with openly homosexual people is very stupid and borders on bigotry; the government should not subsidize scouting, it is a private organization with a private purpose and goal. Nevertheless, I still believe Boy Scouts was a nice way for me to connect with the outdoors despite the fact that there was a single policy that I did not disagree with.
The Scouts’ position makes logical sense. I feel the same way about letting a straight man act as a Girl Scout leader in remote camps
As far as the Boy Scouts are concerned; that cannot be their argument. In my troop there were several heterosexual women who were assistant scoutmasters who went on many of our overnight camping trips, so fear of sexual misconduct must not be a factor when deciding exclude openly gay scouts. Of course you bring up the case of the Catholic priests, one distinct difference between scouting and Catholicism is that boys are never allowed to be supervised by only one non-parent. At least two adults must be present for even the smallest groups on outings. As the number of scouts increases, so does the number of required adults does as well. This policy makes it impossible to commit sexual misconduct without an open conspiracy amongst multiple adult leaders of the troop. I am certain that this policy prevents abuse from would be criminals, not the ban on open homosexuality.
BTW Girl Scouts does allow heterosexual men and homosexual women to lead troops, yet there have been no concerns with this as far as I am aware of.
I have no real beef about the boy scouts. A little tolerations in certain quarters wouldn’t hurt it, but the notion of getting kids involved in outdoors activity, exercise, and nature in this day and age strikes me as not at all a bad idea.
What I resent is how the first assumption of Republicans like Jack is that we liberals uniformly and unequivocally hate these bits of Americana. I think, sometimes, that misapprehension leads him and others to misinterpret our annoyance on certain matters.
To illustrate my point, let’s take what Jack might call a Hollywood Liberal, Steven Spielberg. Is he out to take everybody’s guns? No. As a matter of fact, he has a considerable collection himself. Is he a radical dove? Not at all. He directed one of the best, most definitive films of World War II about a decade ago, and gave Indiana Jones a considerable WWII backstory for his latest appearance.
You look at somebody like Tom Hanks, who starred in that film ten years ago. He goes and produces a mini-series based on one of the informing texts of that movie, Band of Brothers. Guess who he endorsed this year? Obama.
Obama himself references a relatives service in Pattons Army, a relative who, correcting for a mixup in names, did indeed liberate a concentration camp where thousands of Jews and others considered undesirable by the Nazis were murdered.
The Republicans, though, have chosen to take an either or approach, trying to paint themselves as the only true patriots. They want to paint every problematic dictator as a Hitler, and every hint of negotiation as equal to the attempt by Neville Chamberlain and others to appease Hitler by given him half of Czechoslovakia. They want to claim the legacy of righteous opposition to evil for their own.
But it’s not their own, it’s America’s, and many committed liberals also have committed to this nation’s defense, and committed to making America’s imprint on the world a good one, a positive one.
I think if you seriously asked around among liberals, you would find the scouts are well regarded, and that many would have fond memories of it.
But that’s the thing: The current Republican philosophy has encouraged them to keep to themselves, to not break bread with the opposite number, to make them scapgoats on whom the sins of society could be laid. Y’all, I think, have to learn how to reconnect to people, because your party has lost touch with people on a basic level.
Re victims - we have lots of choices. Bad things can happen to anybody. But if they keep on happening to you, you probably should try to figure out what you are doing wrong.Remember the old joke re the preacher and the flood?
A preacher is caught in a flood. He is on the roof of his church when a boat comes by. The guy in the boat says, “Better get in. It is still raining.” The preacher says, “No, I trust the Lord. The Lord will save me.”
A while later the water is to the steeple. Another boat comes by. The guy in the boat says, “Better get in. It is still raining.” The preacher says, “No, I trust the Lord. The Lord will save me.”
Finally the water is almost to the top of the steeple. A third boat comes by. The guy in the boat says, “This is the LAST boat. It is still raining and the water will cover this whole place. Better get in.” The preacher STILL says, “No, I trust the Lord. The Lord will save me.”
Finally, he is up to his mouth in water. He calls out to heaven saying, “Lord, I trusted you. Why did you betray me/”
The Lord Answers, “I sent three boats. Why didn’t you get in one of them?”
As long as you bring up Obama’s concentration camp gaff, let me tell you what bothers me more about it.
Anybody can make a mistake re their relatives. But when Obama said that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, he was making a colossal historical error. Auschwitz was on the Eastern Front. It was liberated by the Red Army. I am unhappy that he doesn’t understand that important piece of history. I am even more distressed by the general impression that very few people make any distinction any more. Obama clearly didn’t see the distinction and didn’t care. Neither did his fans.
My father was as Normandy & the Battle of the Bulge. If I mistake his participation at those two places, it is just that I do not recall my family history. If I think that he was at the battle of Stalingrad, I mistake history in general.
Re liberals and traditional values, there are some who follow them, but even more who play a little loosely and remake the past. I saw the latest Indiana Jones movie – Indiana Jones and the Ward of Geriatrics. Not so good.
Re “Saving Private Ryan”, my father saw that movie. He told me that the graphic scenes and the uniforms were right on, but the general ideas were not. They were interested in killing Germans, not saving lives in general. It was, he thought, more of a movie for the 1990s. Nothing wrong with that, but we have to be careful not to take our history from recent movies. “Band of Brothers” was much better, probably because of Stephen Ambrose.
Warren P, I am glad to hear that you did not experience any brainwashing in the Boy Scouts. I spent 8 years as a youth at the Young Men’s Christian Association. My gymnastics coach was Gay. Didn’t rub off on me one iota.
But there are many Boy Scouts troops in America, and they are not all cookie cutter. My information regarding the Boy Scouts is not from 1st hand experience, but, from the U.S. Army circa 1972-1975, a brainwashing institution if there ever was one. Doesn’t mean everyone in the Army is brainwashed, I made it through without being brainwashed and with a Good Conduct medal and recommendations as Soldier of the Month to boot.
It is nonetheless true, that the Boy Scouts seeks to instill a certain uniformity of action, behavior, and beliefs. It is a form of mental conditioning and attitude teaching. If the teachings are moral and ethical, then we call it a positive influence. If the teachings are immoral or unethical, we call it brainwashing, or by other negative terms.
I have been an avid outdoors person and tent/backpacker camper since my Army days. I think the experience of camping and cooperation and learning of the natural world is all very, very positive.
And you are wrong. I have not one iota of a problem with teaching morality. Been teaching it for 15.5 years now. Provided that morality is not based on intolerance, uniformity and loyalty without question, and patriotism that is unquestioning of government and its leaders.
But, the BSA has acquired a record of litigation and suits and it speaks to the character of the organization in part; and it cannot be dismissed or ignored just because they do so very much good at the same time for young American boys. They must also abide by the laws of America like every other organization is obligated to do.
There is a certain hypocrisy when an organization teaches patriotism and yet seeks to bend the laws of the government they are patriotic toward, don’t you think? This kind of selective patriotism which dismisses or ignores laws they don’t like, is not in keeping with what they try to teach the youth, is it?
KAP said: “DRR, you sit and condem a group because they try to teach morals,”
You must have a reading deficiency. I critique a group NOT because they try to teach morals, but, because they try to teach one thing while acting contrary to it. Read my critique again. I have NO problem with the BSA provided they don’t seek to use government resources to practice intolerance for females among them, gays, and critics of government (a duty of every American citizen according to most of our nation’s founders).
I wouldn’t send my son to the BSA, because of the the example of discrimination they teach by exclusion of so many in their organization. But, they have every right to exist as a private organization preaching and teaching whatever they want provided they don’t use my tax resources to support their private organization.
They also deserve the law suits they lost for using federal government organizations and resources to support their private organization and efforts.
Morality comes in many shades and forms, and is religiously based. Sharia teaches morality. It is different from Christian morality in many ways, and many Christians condemn Sharia morality now sweeping South throughout Africa. In America, freedom of religion is fundamental for ALL religious groups, and I love that about America.
But, when any religious or private group teaching a religion’s brand of morality seeks to use the government and tax revenues paid by other religious and private groups and individuals for their own organization’s growth and operations, then I have a very real problem with that group, regardless what kind of morality they want to foster.
And how many 10’s of millions of American tax dollars Bush gave to Pakistan are being used to develop longer range missiles and more powerful nuclear weapons, to come back and bite us in the future, Jack?
You don’t know, Jack. Because our own government doesn’t know either. We protest in demand for accountability of the money we send them, but continue giving it to them. And still, we don’t have an accounting, Jack. We got Bushed, and that is for sure.
Christians who deny christ are not christians.
What I find interesting here is that a piece clearly aimed at saying, the way the boy scouts handled their disaster is to be praised and was better than all the whining and crying and crime we saw in the New Orleans disaster ….how that gets turned into a crusade to promote diviant sex and life styles in the Boy Scouts calling it “tolerance” etc.
Now, I’m not sure that this basic premise here is correct, that their were more heros and less whiners in the scouts than in New Orleans. I’m sure that there were many brave folks in New Orleans too. The left just likes to emphasize the wining and the “need” for massive government bail outs in all situations.
However, the boy scouts have no obligation to bow down to rabid political correctness nor promote the lefts desire to push homosexuality or even accept it in their organization.
Oh My, am I being too honest and out in the open about this? Lets get back on course. Every mention of the boy scouts apparently pushes the left into an knee-jerk frenzy to push homosexuality and condemn the scouts for not embracing it.
“a piece clearly aimed at saying, the way the boy scouts handled their disaster is to be praised and was better than all the whining and crying and crime we saw in the New Orleans disaster “
Clearly? While that was one opinion that Jack expressed, I also saw a few others. For instance, I thought he was saying, Scouting = good and ACLU = bad. I also thought he was saying that liberals hate scouting because scouts are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, clean, brave and reverent.
I wonder how I got those impressions?
Maybe it was when he said, “Why do organizations like the ACLU - the guys who eagerly defend the rights of terrorists and people with admitted hatred for the United States, insist on attacking the Boy Scouts? It goes to show their true animus.” And when he said, “Below s is the Boy Scout Oath and you can follow this link to find out what other things some people find offensive .”
You must have missed those in your first reading.
The boy scouts have no obligation to bow down to rabid political correctness
Rabid? You can’t discriminate anywhere else based on sexual orientation. You can’t be kicked out of a job, school, work, a gym, etc. because you’re gay.
Stephen said: “Christians who deny christ are not christians.”
Stephen is bereft of logic. He now argues that if your are Gay subscribing to Christianity, you must also deny Christ and therefore not be Christian.
Totally bereft of logic and definitions rational people exercise. Thank you Stephen for that demonstration of ‘Right’ thinking. No wonder the Right has lost their grip on leadership of rational people. If what you say is what BSA teaches the Boy Scouts, you affirm they are into brainwashing in the clearest of terms.
What I find interesting is the twisting of reality some people will take on to vilify victims and promote their own moral superiority. Using 10 year old boys as a battering ram against poor New Orleans victims and bigoted attacks against human sexual norms is disgusting. I wonder what Christ would think of that? Maybe you should tell him about how the Boy Scouts are so much better than his whore, Mary Magdalene.
BTW, I’m a digusting Atheist.
You seem to be attributing the original post to me, I did not make the original post nor endorce it.
But any attack is a good attack, don’t let the facts get in your way?
I agree with you that other issues were dragged in but the central premise of the article was to praise the boy scouts and contrast them with what we saw coming out of New Orleans. It’s not an approach I would use myself but that’s what the author did. And from that we get a rabid lecture from the far left on how Christianity must accept homsexuals and that the Boy scouts must also embrace it. A knee-jerk attack.
Christianity has long rejected homosexuality calling it a deviation which is not natural. New Testament stuff.
I see no reason to battle out what’s wrong with homosexuality and why I feel it’s absolutely right for Christians and boy scouts to oppose it.
If we center our debate on the theme of the original poster, we talk about the disasters and how people reacted. I see personally no need to bring in the boy scouts to point to the mess that the democratic party leadership made of the evacuation. They failed so badly down there it’s apparent to all. A man sitting on hundreds of buses and not using them to evacuate the poor has no excuse. A governor that didn’t get involved and make it happen when she had more than enough resources in place to do it…has no excuse.
First of all my heart goes out to all those who suffered through that night in eastern Nebraska while wondering if their sons and family members were safe or not as well as to those who suffered the worst of all possible losses, by outliving their sons.
The basic premise of Jack’s post is flawed guys. To think that 1 small BSA camp and tornado activity compares to a city the size of New Orleans and a Hurricane along with the resultant flooding has to give anyone thinking logically a moment of pause. Its like comparing Iraq to WWII.
Thats just the beginning of the flawed premise. Lets look further:
“Many in the PC world have demonized the Boy Scouts and tried to push them out of the public square. Such people cannot abide the diversity of someone having an opinion or a world view that differs from theirs.”
Many in the PC world? push them out of the public square? Diversity? Complete and total propaganda mixed with overstatement and gross exaggeration.
“Why do organizations like the ACLU - the guys who eagerly defend the rights of terrorists and people with admitted hatred for the United States, insist on attacking the Boy Scouts?”
Flame and baiting come to mind when facts are grossly mis-stated such as Jack has done. Attacking the boy scouts? It seems the leadership of the BSA attacks homosexuals and the ACLU is defending these abuses. Has the BSA ever had a case where a homosexual leader has abused a boy scout? Has the BSA ever had a case where a straight leader has abused the boy scouts? Pedophiles aren’t necessarily homosexual are they?
“People have the right to association. Liberals defend that for every group except those who espouse traditional American values.”
When you take government money and/or resources doesnt association come without exceptions? Does he right to association mean the right to exclude others when it is associated with government funding?
“Liberals claim that they dislike the Scouts because they do not want to allow gay Scout leaders. The Scouts’ position makes logical sense. I feel the same way about letting a straight man act as a Girl Scout leader in remote camps or consider the problem we had with priests and altar boys. Most people will behave ethically, but these are very exploitable relationships.”
Has the BSA had cases where homosexuals have abused this relationship? Was the problem due to lack of staffing or a concerted effort on the part of the homosexual leaders to abuse scouts?
“While no amount of care will avoid all incidents, organizations have a responsibility to exercise reasonable diligence.”
We still allow male teachers to be in a co-ed classroom and a female teacher to do the same. Yet cant we all recall more examples of abuse in this situatuin that we can in the cases Jack refers to? However if no amount of care will solve the problem where is the logic in preventing homosexual leaders to participate in the BSA?
“You can be sure that the same liberals who want to relax the standards would be thick as flies on any incident facilitated by their insistence on inclusiveness”
Can’t you also be sure the conservatives and neocons would also react the same way? Then why does Jack only call out the liberals on this issue? Yet as he says no amount of care will avoid all incidents, but because there will be an outcry of anger we should only ostracize 1 segment of the population?
“But I don’t think it is really about this one issue. It goes beyond that.”
Of course not its more about blaming the homosexuals for the problems that are not necessiarly their fault.
“People who themselves are undisciplined and flexible with their morality resent those who don’t share these flaws.”
JAck I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that doesnt share these flaws. It would be easy to find those that state they dont but as we have seen in the repub’s elected to office talk is cheap and actions often speak louder than words. Sort of like a “let ye without sin cast the first stone” thing in my mind wouldnt you say?
” Boy Scouts are a constant rebuke to those who claim screwing up is just a natural part of life.”
Jack isnt the difference really nothing more than honesty? Some people admit that they screw up and others dont. Certainly Bush comes to mind on the latter. Are you saying that those that can admit imperfections and flaws are a greater evil than those who dont? Why would you think the BSA are a reminder to those that concede their humanity rather than those who deny it?
“Refusing to be a victim offends those who find victims in every situation.”
Jack I would think that you include me in this liberal camp and amongst those that find a victim in every situation. Myself I choose to be a survivor not a victim in all situations, yet I do realize not all people think that way. I harbor no ill will towards those that refuse to be a victim. In fact I admire them. I do realize however that sometimes when something like a tornado or hurricane is a direct hit on you , whether you like it or not you are a victim. I’m not offended, I just have a bit of emphatey towards my fellow man. Why is that so bad?