The ACLU, the BSA, and inner city youth
The Sun Times has a story today about the most recent round in the legal prize-fight between the ACLU and the Boy Scouts of America.
Now, let me preface my comments by saying: (1) I am an Eagle Scout who’s family has a long history of involvement in the program, (2) I am a former employee of the Boy Scouts of America, and (3) my personal opinion is that the national organization should, if nothing else, develop a don’t ask/don’t tell policy, similar to the military.
The most important of those prefaces is #2. After graduating from college, I worked for about a year and a half for the BSA, and served a district that was disproportionately inner city, minority, and poor. The program was dying in these communities, not because of lack of interest by the boys, their parents, or even community leaders, but because the public institutions that had traditionally kept it going feared legal action by the ACLU. What infuriated me the most about this was that while I was driving around these communities, trying to organize new programs and find new sponsors, I did not run into any viable competition, so to speak. Most of the local programs that the churches and schools tried to start and manage on their own continually failed because they didn’t have the guidance or support of a national organization to help train their volunteers or provide a structure for their program (and none of them had the proven, documented track record of success in keeping kids in school, out of gangs, and on the path to responsible and productice citizenship). And there were no other national organizations, venturing into those communities to help out. There was no ‘ACLU Scouts’ beating me to the punch and signing up kids in other programs and providing the needed alternative to gangs, drugs, and violence. It was just me and my colleagues, and the people whose partnership we needed to get the job done were unable to help because of ACLU threats.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with the BSA position on homosexuality or religious piety. But it is time for the critics of the BSA to, pardon the bluntness of the expression, put up or shut up. Until a viable, competitive alternative emerges to take its place, let the BSA do the work necessary to help keep the young boys of these communities out of gangs and away from drugs. I’d hate to reopen the can of worms on the gun ban, but let me just say this one thing: banning the guns as a cure to inner city violence is like banning zippo lighters as a cure to underage smoking. Will it help reduce the frequency of the problem? I’ll admit that perhaps it would. But the kids will find other ways to light up, or light each other up, as the case may be. We need to solve the real problems, not just treat the symptoms. Would the presence of a BSA supervised program in Englewood have prevented the recent, tragic shootings there? I don’t know for sure. But, to me, there is as much evidence to suggest that as there is to suggest the Governor’s assault weapons ban would have.
So I’d like to know where the Governor stands on allowing public institutions to sponsor, or even host, BSA programs. I know the State Police would love to sponsor Explorer posts again. So why not let them, Gov? Or is your commitment to ending violence in the inner city secondary to your political need to appease atheists and the homosexual community?
What are everyone else’s thoughts?
(And, please, be constructive here. Regardless of what the ACLU would have you believe, the BSA does not actively preach ANY homo-phobia. Check their Handbook, or any of their program materials....the subject is not even addressed. There are many professionals and adult volunteers in the program who don’t agree with those specific policy, but see the overall value in it anyway. Please be respectful of their decision, and do not make sweeping generalizations about the tolerance or open-mindedness of all associated with the organization. UPDATE: Any comments posted that contain such generalizations will be deleted.)
58 comments:
skeeter, what part of "please be constructive here" don't you understand? Didn't you not read preface #3? Didn't you read the last paragragh of the post? If you had, you would see that I advocate the idea of making the BSA’s policies more flexible on these issues, so that more people can participate and benefit from its programming.
Where is your solution? Should the streets of Englewood and Maywood be turned over to the gangs until those changes are made? Because that is what is happening now, and you can see the results of that on the news every night. Should the many dedicated and compassionate volunteers who have chosen to overlook their disagreement with these policies in order to offer an alternative to gangs and drugs have their efforts made more difficult by people who are not offering any alternative? I don’t think so.
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts did a lot for my kids. I'd like to see them active all over.
I hate to see them discriminated against because they ask their leaders to follow a traditional sexual ethic.
It's a huge mistake for Gay Activists to advocate like this.
My leader by the way in Oak Park in the 60s was openly Gay by the way and everyone knew it... before the word gay meant what it does today.
As for our Gov, he'd punt your question to Garcia and Sister Muhammed on his anti-discrimination panel... I'm sured we'd get sound princpled advice from them... probably hanging the worlds woes on Jews.
Skeeter you can't imagine the harm you do for gays when go on like this.
i agree with Bill.
skeeter, feel free to go ahead and post that comment again, without attacking people who volunteer their time or work for very little money to bring positive, proven alternative to gangs. Perhaps I should have more clearly spelled that out as a ground rule. But, I thought the last paragraph made it clear enough. These people deserve a little credit, not your hate-filled namecalling.
G.O.P.,
If you can't stand the heat, get off the blog. Trying to shut down discussion before it even starts is a classic GOP tactic, but hardly belongs on a site dedicated to vigorous political discourse. I look forward to this comment being deleted! Criticism is unpatriotic, after all!
Let's ask the Rev. Meeks his thoughts......
Anon, I am not going to delete your comment, although I do find it absurd and ridiculous. I picked this “tactic” up from Rich Miller, not an RNC handbook. I have no problem with a vigorous debate….and if I wanted to “shut down discussion before it even starts” I would have deleted skeeter’s 10:27 comment as well, wouldn’t I have?
I deleted the comment, not because I didn’t want to address they points he made, but because he explicitly spit in the face of a very simple and justified request: please be respectful of the volunteers leaders who sacrifice their time for this program, and do not make sweeping generalizations about the tolerance or open-mindedness of all associated with the organization. Skeeter responded with an ugly, incendiary comment that I felt was an inapporpiate way to describe dedicated, civic minded community volunteers. So I deleted it, and I'll delete anything else that I find to be similarly insulting to people who have dedicated their time to help their community. I don’t think there is a featured blogger on this site – liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican – who wouldn’t back that decision up.
Skeeter,
My question, skeeter, is: until the BSA changes it’s policy, what should be done to offer constructive, values-based, extra-curricular character and citizenship development so that the young boys of the inner city don’t grow up to be tomorrow’s drug dealers and gang members? All the money spent in the Great Society didn’t seem to help - because government can’t create, maintain, or repair the social fabric of a community on it’s own. Maybe Hillary is right that “it takes a village,” but the government is not the village. It’s needs partners, like the BSA. Where is YOUR proposed partner?
Yes, they do have a policy of exclusion. I don’t believe I’ve tried to deny that. And, as I said, I find the current policy to be misguided as well. Many of the volunteers feel that way as well, but they look beyond.
Now, what have you ever done to directly help improve the lives of inner city youth, that you think you have the right to attack the moral character of those who are doing it right now? These people are donating time, money, and resource – three things parents in these communities don’t often have too much of- and you turn around and call them hate-filled names? How dare you, sir. How dare you.
I explained why I deleted the comment, and – as I said – you are free to repost it, with your solutions, as long as you leave out the hate-filled name calling.
GOP,
Let's set the record straight. You deleted a comment that was critical of the organization, but included no foul names or profanity. It simply pointed out that the policies of the organization are offensive. In direct response to you, it listed real solutions, all of which are rejected by Republicans.
Delete profanity? Fine. That comment of mine did not include any profanity. You deleted the comment because it was critical of BSA and the ILGOP. At least be honest about that.
Republicans, republicans, republicans...skeeter's a one trick pony, what a shame.
skeeter,
I don't know about you, but I consider "bigot" to be a "foul name" to use in describing people who have actually volunteered their time to make their communities safer and better for their kids. And that's what you said.....so, I deleted it.
If you think I deleted the comment simply based on the other points you made, repost them and see if I do it again. As long as you drop the name calling, I won't. I have said that repeatly, so why not go ahead and call my bluff, since that's apparently what you think it is? I haven’t deleted any of the other comments that contradict my position....you did, for some bizaare reason. I only deleted the one that contained – your false assertions to the contrary – hate filled name-calling.
And I'm not sure why you went ahead and deleted the rest of your own comments on your own. That's your deal.
BTW, this is hardly a Democrat v. Republican issue. One of my colleagues at the BSA was the most liberal Democrat I ever met – and I went to DePaul! And I know she would take great exception to being called a bigot, and would certainly applaud my deleting such an ignorant comment.
==Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts did a lot for my kids. I'd like to see them active all over.
Let's be clear--The Girls Scouts don't discriminate based on faith or sexual orientation.
I'm not clear on the issue here--schools have to allow the Boy Scouts to meet as with any religious organization-and it is a religious organization by its own court filings because you must accept a higher power. Atheists are excluded along with men who are not straight. Why should a school or publicly funded institution be sponsoring a religious group?
I was a Boy Scout, though more active in Cub Scouts as a younger kid so it's not some great bias against the organization as well as being straight and Christian. I'm just not sure why public institutions should be funding a religious organization that chooses to discriminate?
We publicly do fund programs that are run by religious organizations, but are entirely non-discriminatory--such as those run by the Catholic Charities. So, my view is why should the Boy Scouts get a special dispensation that Catholic Charities doesn't get? Catholic Charities when it receives tax dollars must offer services to atheists--if public institutions are going to sponsor the Boy Scouts, shouldn't the same rules apply? Specifically you are saying that they are a demonstrated program that is effective in promoting healthy behaviors for at-risk youth--so if the purpose is to support them because they are a good social service provider, should the same rules apply to all faith based social service providers?
As a private faith based organization, the BSA has every right to determine who can be a member, but in doing so they don't get public funding to support them if they are going to discriminate counter to anti-discrimination statutes that cover public funding/support.
"BTW- any First Amendment argument about posts is spurious... the blog owner sets the rules. Want different rules, stick with your own blog."
I agree with that. GOP can set what rules he wants. But if he does, don't expect real anyone to debate.
ArchPundit…..thanks for your comments. You make some valid points, and I thank you for the civil and respectful tone of your disagreement.
I think it is important to note that, by and large, the BSA is not looking for a government subsidy for operating it’s administration of programs. The only thing that it asks of sponsoring institutions is a $20 processing fee (which helps pay for third-party, criminal background checks of all adult volunteers) and that they provide a space to for the troop to meet. In the community that I served, most school districts, police & fire departments, and other publicly funded institutions were afraid of even doing that, because – Scouts honor, this is the honest truth - they received letters from the ACLU that it would result in them being sued. I think that is unfortunate. I met with many school district superintendents, police chiefs, and township social service directors that wanted to sponsor our programs, because they felt it was the only one that could make a real, lasting difference for the youth in their community. Each of them was heartbroken to have to choice between what they thought was best for the children, and the promise of ACLU litigation that could threaten their careers or their institution’s existence.
Skeeter, are you saying that ArchPundit is not “real?” Are you really so mad at me that you would go so far as to indirectly insult those on your own side of the spectrum in order to attack me? I notice that you have still not reposted your previously offered solutions or points. I’m disappointed, because I’d love to respond to them. And as long as you don’t call anyone names, there is no reason for you to assume that they would be deleted. I have not deleted ANY OTHER comments made here that contradict my points accept that one, because it contained a broad, incendiary, and foul generalization of a group that I think deserves a little more respect for their sacrifice and dedication to the youth of their community. Are you still maintaining that it did not? If so, go ahead and repost the rest of the comment and see what happens. What are you so afraid of?
Keep posting all the snide comments on here that you want. I’ll leave ‘em all up, just as I would have left every other comment you posted up, as well. I’m not sure why you took them down yourself.
I think Oak Park banned the boy scounts from using the schools for meetings.
They offered boys Camp Fire girls instead which accepted both boys and girls and didn't have the rule on gay leaders.
I don't know if that's still true or not. All these PC debates in Oak Park become tiresome and I lost interest.
Boy Scouts have an ethic that says sex between men is wrong.
So does the Catholic Church Arch.
Most Churches think sex between unmarried people is wrong.
The idea Scouts think the risk is pedophile is crazy. Everyone get's training on protecting kids (and themselves).
It's just they have an ethic on sexual practices and sex between same sex partners is wrong. Who's the Gov to say that's wrong and deny them use of schools.
My UU Church tells kids abstinance is only sure way to avoid AIDs. It's not an ethical prohibition on sex, but pretty graphic pictures of the consequences of fooling around.
When I was in Oak Park it was taught by a Gay Couple who died so it was a real sobering message to hear it from them.
I don't know how the BS can identify someone's sexual practices in order to ban them unless you go up to them and make a point of saying I do this, what are you going to do about it.
Then the Scouts are in a bind.
Good points Bill. The BSA has several professionally produced training videos on protecting youth from sexual predators, complete with a panel discussion of law enforcement, social service, and academic experts. In none of those videos is the concept of homosexuality even brought up. The message in all of them is: anyone could be a predator, even the people you least suspect.
My wife went through the traing for GS and I think they had problems with married couples alone with kids. It had to be independent sets of adults for fear it could be a predator pair.
Anyone who volunteers today with kids and goes through all this training is very aware the threat is not from gays.
Boy Scouts just have a set of principles about Sexual Ethics they won't back down from, and I say good for them.
Boy Scouts are good. They are not gay bashing.
Let them operate on Public property and do good while Society decides issues of sexual orientation, identiy, and activity.
Don't punish the Boy Scouts for a controversial and undecided social agenda.
The original point of the poster is important which is that the Boy Scouts do a lot of positive programs and social change and in the past especially in urban, minority and lower income areas that now are being punished because of a Gay political agenda that is not the consensus of our civilization. Let the Gay community come to the table with programs for youth that are time proven and values centered. The Gay political community is punishing communities and kids.
If they are concerned about socialization against violence and gay bashing, I don't think Boy Scouts are out their doing any of that, if anything most are good kids who do have values and goal driven. Respecting nature etc.
Those who want to hurt the Boy Scouts are SICK.
The gay agenda is to destroy the Boy Scouts and destroy freedom of religion and first amendment rights by forcing people by law and public monies to recognize BEHAVIOUR which they do not agree with.
Thanks for the comments, Anonymous(s?)…
It is true, and can not be stated enough, that the Boy Scouts (at least in my experience as a member, professional, and volunteer) to not actively preach AGAINST homosexuality as an organization. Perhaps some of the Churches that sponsor them do, but the BSA program that is presented to the youth doesn’t even address the issue at all.
That being said, I personally don’t fault the gay community for advocating their own agenda, and I do not think that agenda is to “destroy the Boy Scouts and destroy freedom of religion and first amendment rights.” They have every right to advocate for greater acceptance and tolerance, and – in the spirit of politeness – best of luck to them. But I do find a great deal of fault with the ACLU, or anyone else who attacks and undermines the efforts of dedicated community volunteers, who in many cases disagree with the policies themselves but look past it for the greater good because they don’t see any viable alternatives, and they want to help keep kids in rough areas out of the gangs and away from the drugs that cause so much tragic violence there.
Does ACLU stand for American Communist Licentious Union?
Larry, thanks for your comments.
In the strictest sense, I am not denying that the BSA is “homophobic.” But I do make the distinction between active and passive manifestations of that. I’ll reiterate: look at the published materials and literature of the BSA program: homosexuality is not mentioned in any of them at all. In fact, the only references to sex at all are in regards to teaching kids to protect themselves from predators (see my 3:18 PM comment), and teaching them that sexual activity is a serious thing that should be reserved for mature adults who understand and are prepared for the consequences of it, physically and mentally.
But I do find a great deal of fault with the ACLU, or anyone else who attacks and undermines the efforts of dedicated community volunteers, who in many cases disagree with the policies themselves but look past it for the greater good because they don’t see any viable alternatives, and they want to help keep kids in rough areas out of the gangs and away from the drugs that cause so much tragic violence there.
So am I correct in iterpreting your quote tomean because of the good works of X organization when should overlook some form of intolerance.
We can logically link that to say Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. They do good community work and help to keep kids out of gangs and violence. We should however overlook any intolerance on their part.
I ask this honestly because I don't agree with the logic.
Gish, thanks for your comment. That’s an excellent point. However, go back to my immediately previous comment (9:06 AM). I would agrue that the NOI practices a VERY active and vocal form of homophobia (not to mention anti-Semitism and general racism against white people), while the BSA practices a more passive form of discrimination (I’ll admit, it’s the only truly accurate word to describe it). Compare the BSA’s literature and published materials with those of the NOI. The BSA doesn’t explicitly condemn homosexuals at all, let alone as sub-human, the way the NOI does with whites. Is it just a matter of degree? Maybe, but so is the difference between Alaska and Hawaii.
Furthermore, I can say that, as a Scout who participated in many city-wide events and the National Jamboree, I learned more about tolerance in the BSA than I did at school or through any other institution or influence. My first experiences socializing with people not of my race or faith came during Scouting programs. I doubt the same can be said NOI’s programs, though I will give them the appropriate kudos for trying to keep kids off the streets and out of gangs.
GO Partisan-
I will agree that the BSA does not actively express intolerance in the same vein as does the NOI as oft expressed publicly by their leader/literature. I admit it was a logical extension (perhaps stretch).
However it does remain common knowledge that homosexuality is not welcome in the organization at a certain level. I would find that trying to make a distinction based on active/passive intolerance is simply too subjective of a process.
I believe it simply comes down to the fact that any organizations 'good works' will inevitably be tainted by their 'intolerance' be it actively or passively practiced once that practice becomes general/common knowledge.
Gish, once again, you are right. I can’t argue that it’s a subjective process.
But, I’m reminded of an episode of the West Wing, when Charlie asks the President why the Red Mass isn’t unconstitutional, and Bartlett says:
“And so how isn't it a Constitutional issue? It is, but sometimes you say, "Big deal." It was the intention not to have a national religion....and not to have the government encourage a national display of piety as a substitute for real action”
Is it TOO subjective a process? I don't think so. Not when the stakes are as high as they are in these neighborhoods. A display of piety is no substitute for real action. But, in this case (and I’d argue, in many others), it is the pious who are acting, and the undeservedly self-righteous who are pushing the hollow or ineffective substitutes.
GO Partisan-
I think I can boil your point down thusly and therefore the problem I have with your logic is as follows:
Due to the 'good works' performed by X organization, we should overlook 'issues' which may contradict generally-held 'beliefs' and support them through government (not to the exclusion of any other support).
My belief is this is exactly the opposite of what our government should do. Too often 'good works' or 'benefits' are used to justify actions counter to fundamental American beliefs. Take the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WW2. The action was justified by the 'benefit' of not having to worry about those potential saboteurs free.
I know that was an exaggerated version of the issue with the BSA but it comes back to my subjectivity statement. Subjective issues lull the population into complacency with regard to freedoms. I shouldn't have to worry about my government providing anything to organizations that will support either intolerance versus people of different sexual orientation or people of different pieties (level of religious interest?).
I believe that the BSA probably does affect the inner-city child's choice to enter into crime/gangs. I don't know as to what level the effect may be. I don't however think my state should provideany significant support to them due to their public policies (even though they are not actively promoted).
I think that is issue is misunderstood.
The Boy Scouts of America has claimed that it was a private organization and can therefore discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation as it sees fit.
Therefore, the ACLU contends that the Boy Scouts cannot recieve unique special treatment from govermental agencies that have anti-gay discrimination legislation on the books; the Boy Scouts have to be treated the same as any other private religious organization.
Example: say a school allows for any of its various clubs to meet in a room. The then a BSA section would have THE SAME rights as another club.
If the BSA is to get preferential treatment, then it has to meet all of the non-discirmination criteria.
Gish,
I think that your logical absolutism is counterproductive. Is there no room for scales of economy between ‘good works’ and ‘issues’? I think that the work the BSA does in the inner cities (and I have seen it with my own eyes) FAR outweighs whatever legal problem there are with its policy of passive discrimination against atheists and homosexuals. And I would also take acceptation with the idea that the BSA is violating “generally-held” or “fundamental” beliefs. I think that most Americans would say that the ACLU and the “gay agenda” (whatever that really is) are more an affront to the generally held and fundamental beliefs of America. Obviously those are debatable points. And I am content to agree to disagree at this point. But I appreciate that you have voiced your disagreement respectfully and with some acknowledgement of the positive work done by this organization and its volunteers.
And I’d reiterate, I am in favor of changes to the organization’s policies that will make it more flexible. But, without an equally effective alternative program being offered, I think it is wrong to put up roadblocks to this organization’s success.
Ollie, your points is well taken. But, please tell me, where is the alternative?
Schools and government institutions alone simply cannot maintain or repair the social fabric of a community on their own. And the disintegration of that fabric is why we see so many gangs, drugs, and violence there. The government needs to partner with other civic groups - be they secular or religious based – in order to end the cycle of violence and crime. If the BSA fails to meet your eligibility requirements for such a partnership, please tell me who does, and show me that they can be as successful as the Scouts. In the communities I served, there was no one else that could.
And so the cycle continues, and the BSA continues to be the helping and that everyone there wanted, but couldn’t afford because of possible costs of ACLU litigation.
Perhaps I am a hypocrite because there are other instances where I am unwilling to sacrifice principal for practicality……and if so, then so be it. But that’s what is going on here. I’m advocating for a program that can actually accomplish something, while the ACLU wants to use legal briefs abstract constitutional theory to take away it away….while offering nothing in it’s place.
GOP-
I too am in favor of the BSA changing its policies.
I guess I just don't think that 'good works' outweigh 'intolerance'. I don't imagine I am in the mainstream. Look at how many people support warrantless wiretaps in the name of public safety. I know I am not all the way to libertarianism but I do have significant leanings in certain areas.
I also agree that the tolerance of homosexuals flies in the face of many Americans religious beliefs but I argue that this nation was founded on 'tolerating' the 'intolerable'.
I was a cub scout in my youth and almost returned to scouting in my adolescence and did not simply from a lack of drive. I think that scouting is a good thing.
I guess in my adulthood I have simply grown to be intolerant of intolerance, almost vehemently so.
Fair enough, Gish. That's a prefectly respectable position, even though I don't completely agree.
I know a great many people who are in the same boat: were in the program as a kid, but have grown angry with the organization because of it's policies. And the reason I know them is because they were the adult volunteers in the communities I served during my tenure as a BSA field staffer. As I said, they opposed the policy but didn't want their kids to miss out on the very benefits and experiences they gained through their participation as a youth. That is why I reacted so passionately to commenters earlier who disparaged all those associated with the program with ugly generalizations.
I do respect your view, and I am glad that your current opposition to the BSA's policies has not done anything to completely sour the memories of your youth or your respect for the individiual volunteers working in those communities today.
Have a great weekend!
The ACLU is disgusting for trying to take on and out the Scouts. Only the children suffer.
Anon 3:01, I'm not sure what you were getting at there....but comments like that aren't helpful to anyone.
Boy Scouts are good. Leave them alone.
Interesting comments and discussion.
I'm one of those eagle scouts that went on to become a left wing tree-hugger activist. I'm frequently disappointed that the BSA allows its good works and reputation be sullied by stubbornly not changing this policy.
A simple solution would be to let each Scout Troop set their own policies for gay scouts and scout masters. That way, the troops sponsored by Mormon and Baptist churches (they are the two largest sponsors of scout troops) can pick leaders that reflect their own religious values, while other organizations could sponsor troops without the discriminatory policy.
I think there are a lot of people within BSA who would like to take that position but they don't due to pressure from the Baptists and Mormons.
Here is something novel: Maybe openly gay scoutmasters are not a good idea. Maybe homosexual behaviour is immoral. What if the two above items are true.
The above anon has a point. It is not necessarily being a homophobe or a gay basher that to have a spiritually (and historically and culturally) belief about homosexuality. The assumption for most of these posters is that homosexual behavior is normal or good. When my kids are of Scout age I would prefer not to have them around active homosexuals.
I would prefer not to have transgender teachers for my children. I think we throw too much information at kid to young.
Parents should have right to exercise traditional religious beliefs regarding sexuality (not just Christian BUT EVERY religion and culture has restrictions on homosexuality) Maybe the above poster is right and homosexuality is not normal but actually unhealthy and unnatural. I am personally repulsed by the public and overt acts of "sexual identity" that I view as depravity in the organized homosexual political movement.
Homosexual behavior is unnatural, immoral, and innapropriate in the public forum. That does not mean that they should not have rights or people should beat them up. However, to force religious organizations or have government leverage resources to get churches, the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts to change their beliefs in a totalirian approach to political correctness is scary.
Will made an excellent point. Each troop should be able to make its own decisions on these issues, free from national mandates. Kind of like states should be able to do with the issues of drug legality and abortion.
Boy Scouts camping, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, learning how to sail or tie knots or first aid
THAT IS ALL BAD
THAT WILL DESTROY HOMOSEXUAL ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY AND INFLUENCE POLITICS
By recognizing God through various religions they are hurting all the poor little aethiest kids and creating a theocratic state
The Boy Scouts must be stopped or we will live in a Taliban state and the Boy Scouts will start going to Boystown and beating up people. Destroy the Boy Scouts
I don't know if anon 8:04 is actually being a right wing wacko, or if he is parodying a right wing wacko. My money's on the latter.
Maybe it is parodying a left wing wacko parodying a right wacko parodying a left wing wacko.
IF the point is that Boy Scouts are neither a threat to Separation of Church and State or to homosexual persons living in peace, than I agree with the point.
But the point and humor is a little lost on me. I could be confused depending on who is parodying who.
Anon(s?), to be fair, I am often personally repulsed by the public and overt acts of "sexual identity" that I view as depravity by heterosexuals in the public forum as well.
I'd rather this post not turn into a debate about whether homosexuality is "normal" or "natural." I don't want such a debate to overshadow the point of the post, which is about the counterproductive campaign by the ACLU to destroy a proven, effective program for youth without offering any suitable alternatives. Let's try to stay on point.
Leave the Boy Scouts alone and let them do good work.
After trying to get the comments back on track last night, it occurred to me: There is no way to deny that the BSA is an effective, proven program for improving the lives of inner city youth and keeping them out of gangs and drugs. Conversely, I think it’s hard to deny that there are some very legitimate constitutional questions posed by the government support of an ostensibly private, exclusive organization. It really comes down to principle vs. practical. The ACLU - giving them the benefit of the doubt - is fighting for their understanding of constitutional principle. The BSA is fighting for the survival of a program with irrefutable practical benefits to youth, communities, and our country (the military is fighting for their ability to continue supporting the Scouts because they, as ‘a class,’ make up a larger portion of the enlisted and officer recruiting base than any other.)
What’s ironic is that, in the case of gun control, the left wants the right to give up on the constitutional principles of the second amendment in order to achieve the practical benefit of reducing crime. I’d argue (and I think the stats are on my side here) that such benefits are overstated, and an increase in gun control statutes does not typically translate into significantly decreased gun crime in the streets (if I am wrong about that, please show me some stats). Now, on the other hand, the BSA has several independent studies that show their program’s benefits are real and significant. So why are so many on the left unwilling to sacrifice their principles at the altar (pun intended) of such practical results?
A few years ago I ran a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts which Congressman Blagoyavich-soon to be Governor-said he would attend. A group of gay protestors decided to picket so our brave governor backed out of attending. Someone earlier wondered where the governor stands on this issue and I can safely tell them he stands far away.
BE PRACTICAL. Encourage and help the Boy Scouts and let them do their thing. All the other stuff is theoretical and academic bs
There's no denying that BSA is a very effective organization at raising good citizens and encouraging our young men to do the right thing.
The fact they allow discrimination against any Americans is a major stain on the organizations proud history. And it is that discrimination that the ACLU fights.
GOP (or anyone else), can you imagine if you were part of a minority (maybe you are already). Now, try to imagine if that minority was something you could hide -- and the mental anguish caused when society as a whole does everything it can to force you to hide your true identity.
That's what "don't ask/don't tell" is.
In this day and age, every rational American recognizes discrimination is wrong and, more importantly, it's unAmerican.
That is why the ACLU fights for anyone who's liberties are being discriminated against, and that is why they are involved in this -- like it or not. (I personally don't like this particular case, but I understand clearly why the ACLU is involved.)
Nw burbs,
I’m not sure if there is anything I can say here that wouldn’t just be another rehash of my earlier posts and comments. I appreciate your comment, and the respect you have given to the organization, it’s volunteers, and its mission. It appears that, as with others, my disagreement with you is over priorities.
Why would ensuring every American is treated with respect and dignity (as opposed to being discriminated against) not be a priority?
nw,
I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm just saying that providing a positive alternative to drugs and gangs is a more important priority. And as long as the ACLU continues it's attacks on an organization that is doing just that, without ensuring that there is another equally effective program ready to take it's place, I will continue to criticize them for this.
Again, it's a matter of perspective and priority. I'm more concerned about gang violence than I am about the idea of a public institution giving $20 and meeting space to an organization with membership policies like the BSA.* Obviously, the ACLU sees it the other way. That's fine, I suppose, but they and their supporters shouldn't be offended when someone points that out in such stark terms.
*or, in the case of the Army and the Jamboree, we are talking about holding them back from supporting their largest base of enlisted and officer recruits. Not good public policy, if you ask me.
Post a Comment