Your tax dollars at work - attacking Boy Scouts

[eisely]

The following post is from the Washington Times. I haven't seen this documentary yet. Has anyone else seen it?

 

PBS film on Boy Scouts slammed as one-sided

By Elianna Marziani

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

 

The Public Broadcasting Service tomorrow will air a documentary that reportedly takes issue with the Boy Scouts policy of excluding homosexuals. But conservatives are determined to block it.

Foes of the film say it is one-sided and misuses public money.

"Its one thing if [the documentarys producer, Tom Shepard] were to produce a film on his private dime. But when you bring the taxpayer money in, and are bringing taxpayer money in, to undermine the Boy Scouts of America, it changes things. Then it becomes a concern of taxpaying Americans," said Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst at the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.

Mr. LaBarbera and those who share his sentiments have initiated a grass-roots e-mail campaign, encouraging like-minded citizens to call their local PBS station and ask them not to air the show -- or at least, to provide equal time for a similar film from the opposing viewpoint.

More than half of PBS funding comes from viewers and national and state governments -- and that is what has caused controversy.

The documentary, "Scouts Honor," examines the aftermath of last summers Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts may exclude homosexual members and leaders. It follows the lives of 16-year-old Boy Scout Steven Cozza and 71-year-old Scoutmaster David Rice. They are the heterosexual founders of "Scouting for All," an alliance of homosexuals and heterosexuals that is fighting the Boy Scouts policy.

People on both sides of the issue who have viewed the film say that it is done in such a way as to make the Boy Scouts appear homophobic and intolerant, while making Steven appear heroic and worthy of admiration for his conviction and tenacity.

"It really showed the courage of Steven Cozza in a way that I thought was very heartwarming and very powerful," said Amy Koberta, spokeswoman for Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). The show will air locally on Channels 22 and 26 tomorrow at 10 p.m. as one in a series of "Point of View" independent nonfiction films.

"Scouts Honor" was produced by Mr. Shepard in association with the Independent Television Service (ITVS). ITVS was established by Congress "to fund and promote programming that involves creative risks and addresses the needs of underserved audiences."

Ms. Koberta says that the homosexual community is one such underserved audience and lauds PBS decision to air "Scouts Honor."

Many religious and conservative groups do not.

"If there was ever an overserved audience proportionally, its [homosexuals]," Mr. LaBarbera said. "To say theyre underserved is the height of ridiculousness."

Pro-family conservative Guyla Mills of Kerusso Ministries, a nonprofit organization in Newport News, Va., agrees, and says that as a public broadcasting network, PBS should make an effort to balance its programming.

"It was very one-sided," she said of "Scouts Honor." She said that while the film included interviews with people supportive of the Boy Scouts policy, the film was slanted to evoke sympathy with Steven, not the Boy Scouts.

Ms. Koberta says the film was "very well-balanced" and includes the opposing viewpoint.

But Mr. LaBarbera says that any mention of the opposition was "token." He says Mr. Shepard, the films producer, is a known homosexual activist and says the video has been shown at "Gay Pride" events in an attempt to mobilize homosexuals against the Boy Scouts.

Additionally, several homosexual activists, including Kevin Jennings, executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), are on the films board of advisers. Mr. LaBarbera says any film with that kind of track record is obviously slanted -- something he finds unacceptable in taxpayer-funded programming.

"I dont think a documentary always needs to be two-sided, but PBS is supposed to serve the nation," Mr. LaBarbera said. "I dont think the purpose of PBS is to be used to spread propaganda against one of Americas most beloved institutions."

The Boy Scouts of America was chartered by Congress in 1916 as an educational program for boys to build character, train them in citizenship responsibilities and help them develop personal fitness.

Scouts take an oath that says, "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." The Scouts say that while they do not make efforts to learn the sexual orientation of members, open homosexuality is inconsistent with the organizations values.

James Dale, an Eagle Scout in New Jersey, was expelled from the organization in 1989 when officials found out he was homosexual. He sued the Boy Scouts in state court in 1992, but a Superior Court judge dismissed his claims in 1995. A New Jersey appellate court overturned that decision in 1998 and the state Supreme Court upheld it in 1999.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling last summer, affirming that the Boy Scouts may make its own rules regarding membership and leadership.

Angered by the U.S. Supreme Courts action, Steven and Mr. Rice began a media campaign and petition in their hometown of Petaluma, Calif., attempting to change the Scouts policy.

"Whats ironic is that the values and tenets that Steven Cozza learned in Scouting about fairness, about sticking up for the rights of all people, and being honest and open in your relationships sort of welled up in him and moved him to take a stand," Mr. Shepard said.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Be happy that this article appeared in the Times and not the Post. As someone who has read the Washington Post, on and off for nearly forty years, trust me when I say it would have been a completely different article. Steven Cozza would have been portrayed as the hero of his generation. BSA would have been touted as the "evil empire". And PBS would have been praised for bringing to light this "horrible injustice". I'm thankful that there has been a resurgence of conservative papers and radio talk shows to counter the left agenda. It wasn't that long ago, all we had in the D.C. area was the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun.

[jbroganjr]

While I support the decision in regards to a group having the right to associate and limit association, as per the 1st amendment, I have a problem with showing (teaching?) boys discrimintation.

I viewed the program in question last night and while the subject is controversial, I came away with the following thoughts.

First, the program is correct in stating that no where does BSA state that homosexuals are not allowed in there handbooks, registration forms etc.

Second, I believe all the scouts shown on last nights program exemplified the boy scout law and oath. In fact, there was a comment that some of the kicked out scouts where poster boys for scouting. Steve Cozza exemplifies the scout oath and law above the other scouts, because he is doing what he feels is right and that takes courage and bravery.

Third, It was chilling to see that BSA national, while extolling 1st amendment rights cut off another citizens right, namely David Rice, but refusing to renew his registration. I would personally like to know more about that situation, because if he was not promoting the alternate scouting for all in the troop, I don't think he would be in the wrong. If you don't agree with that statement, then how do you feel about Southern Baptists who preach dominance over women from the pulpit on Sundays and run a troop during the week. Same senario, different themes. David Rice is not gay, has 50 years in scouting and worked with a scout who is upholding his version of duty to country and obeying the scout law.

As for the no comment from BSA, well I believe that our organization should be more forthcoming, not just on this issue, but also in promoting what a great thing scouting is.

In conclusion, while that program appears one sided, I do commend the producer for trying to convey different points of view on the subject, it is too bad BSA ducked on the response.

I would also hate for scouters and scouts to turn this into a gay bashing forum for I know as well as you, that that attitude is against scouting principles. Using words like attacking boy scouts, too much attention to homosexuals, etc. is a way of inciting the hateful garbage speech that takes away from the core issues and plays into the hands of the media.

 

 

[eisely]

I managed to catch about three fourths of this last night, and it was not nearly as bad as I expected. The apparent treatment of David Rice does disturb me. No one gives up their right to free speech when they join the boy scouts, and I don't think that BSA national or anybody else is interested in instituting a "thought police" regime in scouting. I know more than a few active scouters who are troubled by the national policy, and free and frank discussion among scouters of this issue, like any other issue bearing on the organization, should be encouraged, not suppressed. However, the documentary did show Rice in uniform participating in a gay pride parade carrying signs attacking the scouts' policy. I don't know of any organization that would find such public opposition to an important policy in such a forum acceptable.

 

Fortunately young Steve Cozza was not disturbed by national in pursuit of his scouting career as a youth. The documentary showed him getting his eagle, to which he was entitled. It will be interesting to see what happens when Cozza turns eighteen. If he is to stay active in scouting at that point he has to complete an adult volunteeer application. It would not surprise me to see such an application turned down.

 

For me one of the key moments in the documentary was a shot of Cozza addressing a friendly crowd. In his remarks he declared homosexuality to be "normal." That was his exact word. This is where the factual issue of homosexuality as a choice versus being pre-determined becomes very important. More and more people in the general population have accepted the notion that homosexuality is not a choice.

[scamp]

The program in question is being shown in my area tonight (June 20) and I look forward to viewing it. It will be followed by a 30 minute presentation on scouting in our local area. I am really anxious to see how that turns out! Local print media preview the program as an exploration of how different viewpoints are dealt with in today's society and the action that one young man and one older man have taken when an organization they love (Boy Scouts) establishes a policy they feel is at odds with values being taught by Scouting -- that is, respect and honor vs. discrimination against a specific group. Like I said, I am looking forward to seeing the program. I imagine it will be a topic of discussion at our council board of directors meeting on Thursday night.

[Rooster7]

Jbroganjr,

 

You said, "Using words like attacking boy scouts, too much attention to homosexuals, etc. is a way of inciting the hateful garbage speech that takes away from the core issues and plays into the hands of the media."

 

How do these words incite hate? You keep trying to inject hate as people's motives. To me, this is a cheap way of trying to nullify other people's point of view. No one has used the word "hate" in these posts except you.

 

Scamp,

 

You said, "I am really anxious to see how that turns out! Local print media preview the program as an exploration of how different viewpoints are dealt with in today's society and the action that one young man and one older man have taken when an organization they love (Boy Scouts) establishes a policy they feel is at odds with values being taught by Scouting -- that is, respect and honor vs. discrimination against a specific group."

 

Discrimination is certain wrong when it is based on an attribute such as race. However, your statement presumes that the homosexual has no choice in his behavior. Secondly, as stated in a different thread to Mr. Eisely - What if it can be proven that there is genetic proof that pedophiles are predisposed to be the way they are? I'm confident that you would not support such behavior even if it were not completely by choice. From birth, many things are not within our control (birth defects, genetic makeup, who our parents are, what religion we are brought up with, etc.). Even with genetic evidence of a predisposition, I still see behavior (of any kind) as a matter of choice. It may be more difficult for some than others to resist certain behavior. Certainly, an alcoholic cannot resist a drink as easily as the non-alcoholic. Nevertheless, we (society) do not condone the life of an alcoholic. We hold him accountable to get his life together and resist the urge to drink.

[jmcquillan]

"Hate", "Attack", "Garbage speech", are all words that should be left to those in opposition to the BSA to use. We, in Scouting, should be tempering our own speech to not include those words in this discussion. Let those who wish to take up the opposition to the BSA use the language of the gutter. We should not. We should hold ourselves above that in order to show that we do, indeed, live and breath by the Scout Oath and Law.

 

"Discriminate", and "discrimination" are also words that we should not be using other than to say that this case is not about either. It is about the constitutionally guaranteed FREEDOM of Association.

 

Lowering our standards will only serve to lower us to the level from which the opoosition casts their accusations.

[Rooster7]

A couple of simple points to be made...

 

1) Making the claim that BSA is being attacked, is not hateful nor is it inaccurate.

 

2) Discrimination as we traditionally hear the term is wrong. However, make no mistake about it, BSA is discriminating against homosexuals. It is their legal right to do so - as you clearly stated - It's called freedom of Association. This is the same kind of discrimination all types of groups practice everyday (i.e., Jews can't join Catholic churches, butchers are not welcomed to join PETA, etc.).

 

[njbobob]

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.