Joseph Knippenberg describes very well the likely scenario by which the Boy Scouts will move from a surrender on homosexuality to a surrender on atheism. This is just how institutions are conquered by their implacable foes; it always begins with a decision to be “accommodating” that really represents a failure of courage.
Right on cue, the New York Times takes the editorial line today that the Scouts’ proposed new policy, of leaving questions of open homosexuality to the local level of the organization, will not be enough. This would only move from mandating “antigay bigotry” to tolerating it, which is hardly sufficient, if the whole point, as the Times‘ editors believe, is to stamp out such “bigotry.” And, as I wrote yesterday, the pressure will not stop until the Scouts agree to teach the new gospel of gay rights at all levels of the organization.
The members of the BSA’s national executive board may think that the way forward is to find some via media, but in truth it does not exist. On one side are donors who threaten to withhold funds unless the organization caves on homosexuality. On the other are millions of parents, and thousands of churches and other Scout troop sponsors who will abandon Scouting if it does cave. There is no easy way ahead. The choice is between continuing to be beleaguered, or self-destruction. The Scouts will never not be beleaguered, as long as they remain true to themselves. But they will only bring about the death of the Boy Scouts if they prove false to their principles.
Posed in this way, the choice is easy. It is only life that is hard.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:09 am
I am still trying to figure out if the desired policy (right now, not as a result of possible changes) is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or if there must be some kind of purge of “closeted” gays in the Boy Scouts.
The most publicized example of a gay scout is Ryan Anderson, who was a scout from the age of 6. According to his account, he had dropped out of scouting because of bullying, but the scout leader, who was aware he was gay, urged him to finish his project (on tolerance) to become an Eagle Scout. Then when the project was completed, the scout leader would not sign off on making Anderson an Eagle Scout. Something seems terribly unfair there.
Between the ages of 6 and 17, a certain percentage of boys are going to realize they are gay. If they are scouts, what are they supposed to do?
January 30th, 2013 | 11:09 am
David Nickol writes … “Between the ages of 6 and 17, a certain percentage of boys are going to realize that they are gay. If they are scouts, what are they supposed to do?”
I think we can agree that many confusing tendencies present themselves throughout childhood and adolescence. The personality/character has not yet coalesced because of actual incomplete development of the brain and because of psychological and/or spiritual immaturity.
A scout who is concerned about his sexuality should be provided with information about human development. He should be informed that youth is a time of growth; a time during which all paths in life should be left open. He has a right to know that he is not alone in his struggle to integrate all of his powers and passions; that as a human being he possesses agency, he can decide, can choose the way forward that will allow him to act as an integrated, mature person.
In the meantime, an organization like the Boy Scouts provides numerous, very fine outlets for the tensions and the passions with which young people are buffeted. He will be given every chance to acquire self-control.
If he then desires to act on his homosexual tendencies, he will be free to do so as an adult. If he has changed his mind, no experiences have occurred to make that change more difficult.
It is I believe terribly wrong and harmful to encourage young people to label themselves as any particular “this or that”, thereby denying themselves time needed to achieve true freedom.
January 30th, 2013 | 12:25 pm
If they are scouts, what are they supposed to do? asks David Nickol.
They have a couple options. If they disagree with the traditional Judeo-Christian teaching on homosexuality, then they should leave the Boy Scouts. If they agree with it, they should find ways to cope in a discreet way that doesn’t bring scandal to innocent minds.
January 30th, 2013 | 12:34 pm
Between the ages of 6 and 17, a certain percentage of boys are going to realize they are atheist or agnostic. If they are scouts, what are they going to do?
It seems to me that an option would be to either find, (or found) an organization that shares your moral views. This is neither a mean, nor a discriminatory option. Isn’t this simply asking Boy Scouts to follow the part of the pledge about being honest?
January 30th, 2013 | 12:35 pm
Let me ask a question: If those who want to uphold Biblical views on sexuality want to break off and form a new group with a different name, and leave the Boy Scouts of America to embrace homosexuality, is the LGBT okay with that?
January 30th, 2013 | 1:23 pm
Likely this post will be too long but there are alternatives available for Christian/Catholic parents …..many have organized their own private Girl Scout or Boy Scout venues but here is a pretty good article about what is available….
Scout-like and Scouting Alternative Organizations
There are organizations that don’t call themselves Scouts, but might be described as “Scout-like”. And there are some groups that call themselves Scouts, but are very different from traditional Scouting. Many (but not all) such organizations consider themselves to be an alternative to Scouting. There is no clear line of distinction between “true” Scouting and “Scout-like” or “Scouting Alternative” programs, nor is there any worldwide agreement on what is “true” Scouting. Here are some guidelines that to use to help determine if an organization is “Scout-like”
Most avoid using the terms “Scout” or “Scouting”.
Most do not particularly acknowledge Baden-Powell as the ultimate founder of their program (and a couple pre-date Scouting).
Most deliberately pattern their programs after traditional Scouting (often including not only an outdoor program, but advancement, merit badges, ranks, and a Scout-like uniform), but usually consider themselves to be an alternative to traditional Scouting.
“Scouting Alternative” programs tend to define themselves based on how they differ from standard Boy Scouting or Girl Scouting.
Many of these organizations are US-based, although some have branches around the world. Many are also church-centered Christian evangelizing groups, some belonging to specific denominations, and others available to any “bible-believing, evangelical Christian” church that wants to use the program.
Scouting Precursors
These organizations pre-date Scouting, and hence were doing “Scout-like” activities before there was Scouting…
January 30th, 2013 | 1:29 pm
….here is a link describing the Catholic approach to Girl Scouts……..
Catholic Girls’ Clubs Are in Bloom Nationwide
You don’t need to sell cookies — and be indoctrinated into the worst of today’s culture — to enjoy scouting.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/catholic-girls-clubs-are-in-bloom-nationwide/#ixzz2JU6wtwIm
January 30th, 2013 | 2:03 pm
Let me ask a question: If those who want to uphold Biblical views on sexuality want to break off and form a new group with a different name, and leave the Boy Scouts of America to embrace homosexuality, is the LGBT okay with that?
JDD,
I believe any youth organization has the right to have a code that prohibits sex outside of marriage—heterosexual or homosexual. Here’s the problem with the Boy Scouts and some Christian schools I have read about. If a straight Boy Scout says, “I am attracted to girls,” it is not even remotely a problem. If a straight teenage Boy Scout dates girls, it is not a problem. If a gay Boy Scout says, “I am attracted to guys,” apparently he can be kicked out. For gay kids, it is not a matter of breaking any rules. They are excluded merely because they are gay.
It seems to me (and this may not be fair, but it’s how it seems) that there is an assumption that a gay Boy Scout will be some kind of predator, always looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse other scouts. In reality, I think a gay Boy Scout has a lot more to fear from the other boys than they have to fear from him.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:20 pm
During this vulnerable and fascinating time of life for boys and into this cherished institution, we are now to do what—introduce sexual identity into the world of scouting. First, the issue is not confined to the identity of sexual preference/activities for boys 6 to 17, as the BSA will also allow homosexual scout “leaders” to go camping with these boys—openly and without full acceptance. Seriously, has the BSA gone nuts; is this proposition really in need of deep discussion….give it a break. Tolerating the intolerable is wrong.
Second, the “gay” agenda goes far beyond the moments of hurt for some boys struggling with the awkwardness of their youth and their sexual awakenings. It is self serving in its efforts to recruit into its pathos, culture and outlook.
Third, the gay agenda defies any moral, social or psychological discussion about homosexuality and how to address such tendencies in young men. We are now to proclaim someone as “gay” without resort to protecting that child from such a “choice”. In that sense, what the BSA proposes is a betrayal to those boys.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:26 pm
David Nichol,
You didn’t answer the question.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:27 pm
David Nickol:
Given the culture and purpose of the Boy Scouts of America, why would any such statement, “I am attracted to girls” (which is by the way the default position – no need to announce it) or “I am attracted to boys” be necessary?
There are other venues where developing sexuality can be discussed and where discussion is encouraged – home, medical offices, school, therapists offices. A boy might also discuss the question with a trusted personal friend.
Children and youths need a place within which they can achieve a healthy balance of body, mind, and spirit and can avoid making premature decisions that they may deeply regret. Just stating that fact to them – that the Boys Scouts is that kind of place – will be of great help to almost all young people.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:29 pm
[David Nichol] “It seems to me (and this may not be fair, but it’s how it seems) that there is an assumption that a gay Boy Scout will be some kind of predator, always looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse other scouts.”
This is a wildly slanderous mischaracterization of your opponents’ position. Talk about assumptions!
January 30th, 2013 | 3:35 pm
This spells the end of Scouts. Gay activists will permit no dissent. There is no tolerance for those who dare to disagree.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:49 pm
You didn’t answer the question.
JDD,
Gay rights groups will never approve of organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, just as, say, the NAACP will never approve organizations that discriminate based on race. However, I don’t believe gay rights groups could legitimately object to codes of conduct that treat gay and straight people equally. Such a code of conduct could prohibit sex outside of marriage for Boy Scouts, few or none of whom, I would suspect, marry before leaving at the age of 18.
When the NAACP sued the BSA over racial discrimination in 1974, do you think the NAACP would have been satisfied with the BSA giving up their organization and starting a new one that discriminated against blacks? Certainly not.
Before anyone objects that race and sexual orientation are not analogous, let me just say that while many don’t think so (including very many here), gay rights groups and a great many people who support them, or have gay sons or daughters, or gay friends, do see discrimination based on sexual orientation as having a lot in common with discrimination based on race. And they hold that belief sincerely. So people who reject that analogy, whether they are right or wrong, still have to deal with the fact that a great many people of good will see unequal treatment of gay people to be very similar to racial discrimination. They see it as a form of prejudice or bigotry. And they believe that quite sincerely. It is not just a ploy or a tactic to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. They think discrimination based on sexual orientation is unjust.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:31 pm
David Nickol says,
“They think discrimination based on sexual orientation is unjust.”
Right. And they are wrong. Period, end of story. Luckily for Americans, we have a First Amendment so we can say so and practice our faith which teaches us that such discrimination is just (although such wisdom is open to all via the natural law).
So hopefully, the Scouts won’t cave and will stick up for their Christian values and be allowed to say to the world, we don’t want anyone who is openly gay to be a Scout as such a sinful lifestyle directly contradicts Scouting values.
January 31st, 2013 | 9:04 am
JDD –
How do you account for the comment of “Bob” at
January 30th, 2013 | 3:20 pm?
January 31st, 2013 | 10:05 am
Ray [How do you account for the comment of “Bob” ...]
Ray, this is the closest you’ve come yet to merely trolling, and is beneath you.
Can you point out to me where Bob endorses the characterization I objected to: “… that a gay Boy Scout will be some kind of predator, always looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse other scouts.”
Do you understand the difference between being an advocate, and being a sexual predator?
Mr. Nichol responded to my other post, but chose not to defend his statement in question. He couched his statement in the terms “It seems to me…” and perhaps by his silence he graciously acknowledges that he overstepped. If you want to maintain your credibility, you would be wise to do the same.
January 31st, 2013 | 10:38 am
This is a wildly slanderous mischaracterization of your opponents’ position. Talk about assumptions!
JDD,
How can you describe something so tentatively put forward as a “slanderous mischaracterization”?
What I said:
There is a big difference between saying “it seems to me” that something is the case, and saying it is the case. Acknowledging “this may not be fair” is, in essence, saying I may be wrong and I am saying so up front. Saying “there is an assumption” attributes the assumption neither to you nor to anyone else writing in the forum. If I had said, “You people obviously believe that any gay Boy Scout will be some kind of predator, always looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse other scouts,” it might be called a mischaracterization.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:25 am
Concluding that, “Gay rights groups will never approve of organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation…,” is to say that gay rights groups will never approve of organizations – such as the Catholic faith – that do not endorse the moral beliefs of the gay community.
Yes, I know that you think it’s a civil rights issue. And we do respectfully disagree there. So your answer to my question is ‘no’, based on your belief that it is a civil right that is being violated.
Then the gay rights community should stop phrasing the argument in terms of ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ of alternate viewpoints, morality and life decisions. They should be bold enough to say, we think conservative Christian morality is absolutely wrong and it’s not about just wanting all viewpoints to be treated equally, (and the list of variations of viewpoints to be treated equally gets longer all the time.) But to take that bold and honest stand would also be to infer that there is an objective standard for human sexuality – and as much as possible, the LGBT movement does not want to go near that ground. They can’t even agree on that ground internally.
That is the ground, and the path, however, that the anti-slavery movement took – spearheaded by Christians such as MLK.
Sometimes you seem to venture into this territory, but sometimes – as here – you avoid the moral component entirely. You are a Catholic, Mr. Nichol, but you are falling back on familiar judicial terms for your defense, and reasoning as a moral relativist.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:32 am
To clarify: By “That is the ground, and the path, however, that the anti-slavery movement took – spearheaded by Christians such as MLK.”
I am refering to the ground of an objective morality. The anti-slavery movement did not hesitate to invoke an absolutele moral law in its arguments. Civil rights were understood – and expressed – within that framework.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:58 am
When I was a scout the BSA did not discriminate against men of faith. Any orthodox troop leader could honor his oath to the Scouts by practicing his faith and following its teachings. Indeed, every scout and troop leader was specifically required to do so!
The BSA oath binds every scout leader to the teachings of his faith. Now let’s say I’m a priest and a Scout leader. One night we are sitting around the campfire and the scouts start talking about girls. During this conversation, one of boys asks one of my assistant leaders–who has always done a great job–if he is married. “No,” he says, “I’m gay.” One of the boys responds saying “but sodomy is a sin.” My assistant quietly and politely explains to the boy that homosexual acts are not a sin, but it IS wrong to say the sort of thing he just said.
The next day I tell the gay troop leader that he is banned from the troop. He then sues the local Scout troop and the BSA. The BSA calls me up and wants to know what’s going on. I tell them that I am bound by the BSA oath to be faithful to my duty to God, and like any orthodox Roman Catholic, Jew, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim in my position–all of whom are taught that sodomy is a sin–I could not let the asst. troop leader instruct boys that homosexual acts are not morally wrong. The BSA fires me and reinstates my assistant.
In my not-far-fetched hypothetical, the BSA made me take an oath that I would uphold my duty to God. I did so, and I was fired for it. As Fr. Neuhaus said, “Wherever orthodoxy is optional it sooner or later will be proscribed.” That simply must be true.
January 31st, 2013 | 12:44 pm
JDD – Why do you think it was so important to Bob that “the BSA will also allow homosexual scout “leaders” to go camping with these boys”? What’s so critical about camping in particular?
January 31st, 2013 | 3:17 pm
I see two separate issues being discussed here. I discussed one in my 11:58AM post; viz. that the Scouts’ new position is incompatible with their oath of duty to God. Incompatible, that is, with anyone who is orthodox Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jew, Mormon, or Mulsim (along with other religions I haven’t listed that regard homosexual acts as sin).
The second issue is more practical, I suppose. I think we can take it as a given that no parent would let their 15-year-old daughter join a Girl Scout troop that sent the girls off on overnight trips with a straight male leader.
January 31st, 2013 | 3:18 pm
Let me ask a question: If those who want to uphold Biblical views on sexuality want to break off and form a new group with a different name, and leave the Boy Scouts of America to embrace homosexuality, is the LGBT okay with that?
No, Mr. Nickol is right, in this case: They won’t be.
Now, of course, the First Amendment would protect the nominal existence of such religious organizations. But everything possible would be done by gay activists to make life as difficult as possible for them. They would work to bar the use of state and federal parks or other property from official activities like jamborees. They would pressure businesses that considered working with them on charities. They would pressure schools to bar them from their property. And so on. Everything possible to socially marginalize them and make it very difficult for them to undertake scouting activities. To put them in KKK territory.
The alternative is the “soft” surrender proffered by Mr. Nickol. Drop the distinction about homosexuality and merely content ourselves with a stricture against extra-marital sex. I suspect that even this arrangement would be difficult to maintain: imagine the first time a scoutmaster is fired for sexual relations with one of his troop members who happens to be at the age of consent, and the lawsuit that might ensue. Repeat and rinse. Eventually, even after winning some lawsuits, the BSA would find it easier to cave here, too.
But the fact is that the most parents with children in the BSA would not be satisfied with such an arrangement, and not merely most of the religious ones. Because the result would be an acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and homosexual sexual acts likewise – just not in this particular context, which also happens to bar heterosexual sexual acts. And that would be incompatible with the religious tenets of many of these…
January 31st, 2013 | 4:01 pm
Douglas Johnson –
Are you familiar with the modern policies of the Scouts in response to the various child-abuse scandals? Do you know what the phrase “two-deep leadership” means in this context?
January 31st, 2013 | 7:35 pm
Ray Ingles,
I spoke to a person very high up in the BSA today and he informs me that the Adventurers is a co-ed scouting group. He said that instances where girls are on a camping trip with a male leader the troops is required to have at least one female leader also in attendance.
Is that what you mean by two-deep leadership?
February 1st, 2013 | 8:20 am
Douglas Johnson – No, that’s not what I mean.
I was referring to this: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx
See the section titled “Two-deep leadership on all outings required.” The two sections after that are relevant, too.
Not only that, the sponsoring organization (often a church) may have their own requirements. To participate in campouts, I’ve been through both the Scout child-abuse prevention training, and the Catholic Church’s version.
February 1st, 2013 | 12:38 pm
Ray, so your reading of, “the BSA will also allow homosexual scout “leaders” to go camping with these boys”, vindicates Mr. Nichol’s off-the-cuff, out-of-the-blue, not-meaning-any-of-you statement, “It seems to me (and this may not be fair, but it’s how it seems) that there is an assumption that a gay Boy Scout will be some kind of predator, always looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse other scouts.” Do I have that right?
Interestingly enough, I even see what you’ve inferred. It’s not what I read from his comment – and I won’t pretend to tell you that I know exactly what Bob meant, as you have. You read a concern about an openly homosexual man going camping, and YOU assume that the concern must be about predatory habits. I think it provides more insight into your biases than to others.
February 1st, 2013 | 3:38 pm
Huh, that’s interesting. Comment disappeared.
JDD, how would you read Bob’s words more charitably?
February 1st, 2013 | 7:50 pm
Bob:
“During this vulnerable and fascinating time of life for boys and into this cherished institution, we are now to do what—introduce sexual identity into the world of scouting.”
Heterosexuality is a sexual identity.
February 4th, 2013 | 4:08 am
Gay activists do not tolerate opposition to the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics.
Yet they operate on the false assumption that same-sex sexual behavior is moral. It is false because it lacks sound moral argumentation. But that does not stop them.
This attack on the Boy Scouts is a display of unreasoning obstinancy — bigotry. The gay activists seek to entrench progay bigotry in every major social organization. Their ways and means are justified, they feel, by the supremacy of gay identity politics. History is replete with examples of how this sort of thing goes. The gay example is just the latest.
February 4th, 2013 | 6:04 pm
[Ray] “JDD, how would you read Bob’s words more charitably?”
Mr. Ingles, I didn’t think that all homosexual men are predatory. That’s how I *don’t* hear Bob’s words. I hear a concern about role models and conversations around the campfire of what is normal and good. Now about how *you* hear them: You jumped to defend a statement by Mr. Nichols that is a pretty good example of more heat than light. The credibility of your arguments with me and other readers is going to continue to be shaped by whether you are able to re-evaluate and even retract your position at times. Does your persistence mean that you agree with Mr. Nichol’s position?
February 5th, 2013 | 11:48 am
JDD –
Which would not apply to scout meetings or boards of review or merit badge counseling sessions?
Again, Bob seemed to focus on the problem, not of having homosexual “leaders” (his quotes) per se but having them “go camping with these boys”.
I pointed out what seemed to me to be a reasonably good example of the attitude he speculated about. I did not claim – and do not believe – that everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators.
On the other hand, I’ve seen the notion come up enough times that I do think it’s a factor for more than a few.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:19 am
[Ray] “Bob seemed to focus on the problem, not of having homosexual “leaders” (his quotes) per se but having them “go camping with these boys”.
No, he ended with it as an obvious centerpiece of Scouting where much influence is had over a boy’s life. You interpreted the expected ‘problem’ in your own manner.
[Ray] “I pointed out what seemed to me to be a reasonably good example of the attitude he [David Nichol] speculated about.
A reasonably good example, based on what you believe conservatives think. Mr. Ingles, don’t you realize that the issue here isn’t even what Bob thinks anymore – it’s that you’ve read a fairly neutral statement of concern, and concluded – primed by Mr. Nickol’s hint – that “See, *there* it is!!”
[Ray] “I did not claim – and do not believe – that everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators.”
Then that’s all I’m after. Both of you have backed off the blanket nature of Mr. Nichol’s original statement.
February 12th, 2013 | 12:33 pm
JDD – Didn’t have to wait long for what I think you’d have to grant is more than a “fairly neutral statement of concern”.
See the next thread, Boy Scouts And Sex, particularly the comments of, say, “Vince in Lousville” or “ZZ”.
Like I said, I don’t think everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators. But it’s a factor for more than a few.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact