Pornography Okay with Scout Oath/Law?

[tortdog 10]

Well, I wrote:

 

>If you start to stand up and scream "I am gay!" then the BSA says you are out. Maybe the BSA will never send out a secret squad to determine our private sins, but if a Scouter starts producing pornographic movies while proclaiming he is a BSA leader, the BSA would act to remove him.

 

In other words, the BSA doesn't know if people are gay unless they stand up and scream it (as did Dale). Repeating myself, perhaps the BSA WOULD kick a leader out if he also proclaimed himself to be a porn producer, or expanding, was publicly found to be a thief, etc.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

"*To avoid the discussion turning into a philosophical discussion"

 

If this column were pornography, everybody would miss the point of it.

 

FB

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Tortdog asks:

 

The BSA has set a standard that homosexual leaders are not acceptable to Scouting, as their conduct violates the Scout Oath/Law.

 

But, the BSA has NOT set similar standards for anything else, right? There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal. Or am I wrong? If not, why did the BSA draw a line with homosexual activities but not these others?

 

That's a really good question.

 

It is so good, in fact, that if you were to read through my past posts in "Issues and Politics," you would find that I have asked the same question at least 10 times, probably closer to 20. I have never received anything approaching a reasonable answer... in fact, I can think of only one poster who has even attempted an answer, and the answer didn't make any sense.

 

When I have asked that question, my list of things that will not result in automatic removal by national policy has included other items as well: Adultery, heterosexual cohabitation, a conviction for driving while intoxicated (especially one in the distant past) come quickly to mind. You can be removed by your council for these things, in some councils you probably would be, but in some you might not be. In some cases it would be left up to the local unit, as most issues of leadership are.

 

By the way, you give the examples of lie, cheat and steal... I think those would depend on whether the person has been convicted of a crime involving lying, cheating and/or stealing. If so, national probably would step in and remove the person. Being a convicted criminal, especially a recently convicted criminal, is on the very short list of things that will get you automatically removed by national. One of the others is being (leaving aside any technical or legal language) a child molester, and if it is done in the BSA context and reported to national, I doubt if it matters whether the person has been convicted or not. The third and fourth items on the list would be being an avowed atheist and being openly gay.

 

What is the logic behind this list? The first two are to protect the boys (and the adults.) The third (atheism) derives directly from the express language of the Scout Oath and Law, and the Declaration of Religious Principles. The fourth (being openly gay) derives from no logic or sense that I can determine. It does not promote any "value" of Scouting, and should be up to each unit to decide.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Tortdog, on the issue of James Dale, I have read the opinions in that case (New Jersey Appellate Division, New Jersey Supreme Court and the three opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court), several times each, and I don't remember anything in any of the statements of fact about him "screaming" that he was gay, or anything else for that matter. I have always thought that the Dale case was the worst possible case for the BSA as an example of its gay policy. Based on the published facts, as of the time of his termination from the BSA, James Dale was just about the quietest "gay activist" in history. He was speaking at a seminar, near his college (not located in his home community where he was an assistant scoutmaster) about the problems that young people go through when they are in the process of discovering they are gay, based on his own experiences. A newspaper that is published statewide asked him some questions and printed his name, which he thought nothing of. Apparently, up until that point, nobody in his troop or council knew he was gay. Next thing he knows, he's out, and the rest is history.

 

Now, I have seen the story repeated in this forum that he was terminated after being seen dressed in drag at a gay pride parade. Proving, I suppose, that it's a lot easier to get the facts on your side if you just make them up.

[tortdog 10]

NJ. I did not mean to demean Dale. I was taking the case to the extreme to make the point that apparently the BSA only cares about people engaged in perceived immoral behavior brought to the public's attention.

 

>I have never received anything approaching a reasonable answer... in fact, I can think of only one poster who has even attempted an answer, and the answer didn't make any sense.

 

I'm going to try, but I am sure you know as well as I that my answer would mean little since I am not in the BSA's mind.

 

>Adultery, heterosexual cohabitation, a conviction for driving while intoxicated (especially one in the distant past) come quickly to mind. You can be removed by your council for these things, in some councils you probably would be, but in some you might not be.

 

So it appears these are on a case by case basis, but that councils DO remove leaders for bad conduct other than merely being a public gay (meaning, a person who is gay and engages in some form of public activities that tells society that he is gay).

 

>By the way, you give the examples of lie, cheat and steal... I think those would depend on whether the person has been convicted of a crime involving lying, cheating and/or stealing. If so, national probably would step in and remove the person.

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

>Being a convicted criminal, especially a recently convicted criminal, is on the very short list of things that will get you automatically removed by national.

 

Okay, I did not know that, but it certainly make sense. But let me ask you this, what about being a criminal for a crime that is not immoral, for example in Texas until recently it was a crime to engage in sodomy. If you violate the law against sodomy but you view that conduct as moral, would the BSA have removed you?

 

>One of the others is being (leaving aside any technical or legal language) a child molester, and if it is done in the BSA context and reported to national, I doubt if it matters whether the person has been convicted or not. The third and fourth items on the list would be being an avowed atheist and being openly gay.

 

Molester makes sense, to protect the youth. I understand the first one as you must swear a duty to God. On the last is where the BSA policy seems somewhat odd, but you seem to be providing information to support that the BSA is consistent. Already you have shown that public crimes of immorality (convicted for breaking the law) constitute cause for removal. The only non-law breaking behavior that also constitutes cause (other than atheism) would be a gay public figure. I think the reason the BSA likely has a firm policy against this now is because it was pushed to the brink by the ACLU, and given a choice between allowing a gay public figure to also be a Scout leader or removing that man it was forced to choose with what it viewed as the moral choice.

 

Now, why doesn't the BSA have a Supreme Court decision with the ACLU backing a child molestor, an adulterer, or a porn producer who also serves as a Scout leader? I think it's just reality of facts, that the ACLU would not take that position, and there is no adultery lobby, porn lobby or even molestor lobby fighting for the rights of adulterers, porn producers or molestors to be Scout leaders.

 

In other words, I think the reason there is a sharp line with gay leaders is because the gay lobby made it so.

 

Thoughts?

[packsaddle 753]

NJ, I think that Trevorum and I supplied a (perhaps limited) set of answers to your question. Two of my alternatives, at least, (although not particularly satisfying or illuminating) could explain the apparent contradiction.

 

tortdog,

as I remember, the Texas sodomy law that recently saw its end was rejected because the sodomy law (a very loose interpretation of the act in this case) was being applied ONLY to gays when, in fact, those acts included were also practiced by non-gay members of the Texas population (they just weren't being prosecuted). The legal action, I believe, was intended to force the government to apply the law equally to everyone. It seems fair to me. In response, for some reason (wink, wink), the leaders of government in Texas decided it would be better to get rid of the law.

Now that I think of it, who WOULD want to mess with Texas?

Wow, I just remembered...BSA headquarters is in Texas ....naaaaah!

Edited for subtlety;)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutingagain 20]

"it was pushed to the brink by the ACLU, and given a choice between allowing a gay public figure to also be a Scout leader or removing that man it was forced to choose with what it viewed as the moral choice."

 

Tordog, as I understand it, the ACLU was not involved in this case until after the BSA revoked Mr. Dale's membership. I agree, the BSA was pushed to the brink, but it wasn't by the ACLU.

 

SA

 

[tortdog 10]

First, I call being "pushed to the brink" when you are forced to defend a decision in public court. The ACLU dragged the BSA there. The ACLU forced the BSA to have one-on-one's with the major supporting organizations of the BSA, which resulted in a firm policy that I doubt the BSA will retreat from for a long time to come.

 

So...the gay lobby made it's own bed.

 

>as I remember, the Texas sodomy law that recently saw its end was rejected because the sodomy law (a very loose interpretation of the act in this case) was being applied ONLY to gays when, in fact, those acts included were also practiced by non-gay members of the Texas population (they just weren't being prosecuted).

 

While your summary of the Texas law (still remains on our books) is correct, your analysis of the Court's reasoning is not. The Supreme Court struck down all laws respecting sodomy, as it saw a Constitutional right to sodomize another person in the privacy of one's bedroom. I don't recall a right to privacy ever being debated by any legislative body, but there it is.

 

>In response, for some reason (wink, wink), the leaders of government in Texas decided it would be better to get rid of the law.

 

You are incorrect. The People of Texas have not removed this law from its books. The People of Texas are prohibited from enforcing this law because the Supreme Court said the U.S. Constitution prohibits it.

 

The Supreme Court is incorrect in its interpretation. Constitutional rights are the result of the consent of the People. They are in the Constitution only by a super-majority of the People agreeing to put them there. Never in the history of the Union has Congress ever debated adding a right of privacy (let alone protection to engage in sodomy) to our Constitution.

 

The Supreme Court errs. The Supreme Court overruled about 200 years of precedent. The dissent is correct that the Supreme Court had no right to change the law.

[packsaddle 753]

Well, at least I got part of it right. That law is still on the books? You can be sure that if I EVER mess with Texas, I'll give myself a good scrub afterwards.

[DugNevius 10]

Ah, Texas and its wondeful laws... where "sexy" cheerleading is against the law, because it causes pregnancy.

[tortdog 10]

Meanwhile, some people think is a hunky-dory idea to have children use their dance routines to mimic the moves of a strip dancer so long as they have a little more covered.

 

Oh yes...why oh why are more kids wanting to test the waters of sex, with children even raping each other?

[DugNevius 10]

haha yeah, and like pornography, dancing causes crime.

[Hunt 11]

I was just looking at the official BSA website, and it is full of improper imagery! It depicts both males and females with bare arms and legs, women without head coverings, boys and girls standing improperly close together, etc., etc., etc.

 

Of course, I'm kidding--but in some cultures those things really would be improper. That's why this kind of topic is so difficult.

[sitrep 10]

I go for C. But I have to say this thread is pretty ridiculous. I'm more concerned with kids seeing graphic violence on TV and movies than I am with a little T&A.

 

tortdog:

 

Shouldn't you be tortfeasordog?