People seem to miss the point when it comes to deciding whether or not the Scouts are "Discriminating"...
It's not the inclination that's the issue -- whether it's normal or not. Giving in to that inclination is the issue. A heterosexual male who "can't help himself" when it comes to sleeping around with any and every female he can bag is just as unfit to be a Scout Leader as somebody practicing the gay lifestyle. A Scout Leader needs to be an unquestioned model of morality to every boy in his charge. And as long as there are religions which consider homosexual activity immoral, an avowed gay CANNOT be such a model. (And we can't ignore the religious source of morality -- The first duty a Scout pledges to fulfill is Duty to God.)
There are many behaviors which, if practiced in public, would be grounds for dismissal of a Scout Leader that nobody would question. A Scoutmaster busted on drug charges would be out in a minute. A peeping tom Scoutmaster? Not for long! How long would your committee keep a leader that showed up drunk?
If we investigate that last one a bit more I think we'll see what the real issue is (or should be) here. More studies show that tendency toward alcoholism is to some extent genetic. In other words alcoholics are born that way. But the problems don't arise until they give in to the urges and start drinking. That's where the immoral behavior is. A "recovered" alcoholic, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable as a moral role model. In fact, the ability to overcome adversity and defeat that tendency day after day could make one an even stronger role model than a person with no "problems" to overcome.
Now, someone will post about how this parallel is worthless because homosexuality is not a "problem". It's the homosexual community that says its not a problem. Most alcoholics "don't have a problem" either until their lives fall apart around them. If enough alcoholics got together and lobbied Congress that their "lifestyle" was truly acceptable and not to be discriminated against, would we all just kick the dirt with our toes and say "yeah, I guess..." before wandering away? We're doing it now.
One last comment about the characters in Scout's Honor film... While everyone may be praising the "bravery" of the young Scouts for speaking out for what they feel is an injustice, we need to remember another point of the Scout Oath is being trounced here.
A Loyal Scout would be taking the message of injustice inside the organization to attempt to sway Council, Regional, and National leadership. A Loyal Scout would not be running around telling the world that the Scouts are discriminating against anyone -- or that they're wrong thinking. If a Loyal Scout failed to persuade those in power, he would either accept the result, or keep trying WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. And a Loyal Scout would certainly not use the uniform and emblems of his organization as tools in his fight to undermine the organization.
I have a lot of respect for Steve Cozza for taking on the fight he's chosen. I give him a lot of credit. But I think that he abdicated his right to wear the Boy Scout Uniform, and particularly the Eagle rank emblem when he did so. He's fortunate that his Board of Review apparently didn't want the controversy of denying him. As for David Rice, I also feel for him -- but I'm sure he knew this was a possibility -- and I'd lay odds he was warned before his termination. He, too, chose his own path.
Your tax dollars at work - attacking Boy Scouts
in Issues & Politics
Posted
People seem to miss the point when it comes to deciding whether or not the Scouts are "Discriminating"...
It's not the inclination that's the issue -- whether it's normal or not. Giving in to that inclination is the issue. A heterosexual male who "can't help himself" when it comes to sleeping around with any and every female he can bag is just as unfit to be a Scout Leader as somebody practicing the gay lifestyle. A Scout Leader needs to be an unquestioned model of morality to every boy in his charge. And as long as there are religions which consider homosexual activity immoral, an avowed gay CANNOT be such a model. (And we can't ignore the religious source of morality -- The first duty a Scout pledges to fulfill is Duty to God.)
There are many behaviors which, if practiced in public, would be grounds for dismissal of a Scout Leader that nobody would question. A Scoutmaster busted on drug charges would be out in a minute. A peeping tom Scoutmaster? Not for long! How long would your committee keep a leader that showed up drunk?
If we investigate that last one a bit more I think we'll see what the real issue is (or should be) here. More studies show that tendency toward alcoholism is to some extent genetic. In other words alcoholics are born that way. But the problems don't arise until they give in to the urges and start drinking. That's where the immoral behavior is. A "recovered" alcoholic, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable as a moral role model. In fact, the ability to overcome adversity and defeat that tendency day after day could make one an even stronger role model than a person with no "problems" to overcome.
Now, someone will post about how this parallel is worthless because homosexuality is not a "problem". It's the homosexual community that says its not a problem. Most alcoholics "don't have a problem" either until their lives fall apart around them. If enough alcoholics got together and lobbied Congress that their "lifestyle" was truly acceptable and not to be discriminated against, would we all just kick the dirt with our toes and say "yeah, I guess..." before wandering away? We're doing it now.
One last comment about the characters in Scout's Honor film... While everyone may be praising the "bravery" of the young Scouts for speaking out for what they feel is an injustice, we need to remember another point of the Scout Oath is being trounced here.
A Loyal Scout would be taking the message of injustice inside the organization to attempt to sway Council, Regional, and National leadership. A Loyal Scout would not be running around telling the world that the Scouts are discriminating against anyone -- or that they're wrong thinking. If a Loyal Scout failed to persuade those in power, he would either accept the result, or keep trying WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. And a Loyal Scout would certainly not use the uniform and emblems of his organization as tools in his fight to undermine the organization.
I have a lot of respect for Steve Cozza for taking on the fight he's chosen. I give him a lot of credit. But I think that he abdicated his right to wear the Boy Scout Uniform, and particularly the Eagle rank emblem when he did so. He's fortunate that his Board of Review apparently didn't want the controversy of denying him. As for David Rice, I also feel for him -- but I'm sure he knew this was a possibility -- and I'd lay odds he was warned before his termination. He, too, chose his own path.