Friday, May 24, 2013

On the change of policy by the Boy Scouts of America

Another trench lost in the culture war. . .

With much fanfare, the Boy Scouts of America have changed their policy regarding "openly gay" Scouts in its ranks.  After a vote yesterday, a Boy Scout in good standing may be "openly gay"; "openly gay" adults are not permitted to be adult leaders, however.   This change in policy has followed years upon years of vilification heroically endured by the organization, including the loss of camping privileges at many public areas around the country, repeated desecration of their uniform in gay pride parades, etc.

Your humble commentator was a poor Boy Scout as a youth, and (hopefully) a better assistant Scoutmaster as an adult.  I have three comments for now:

1)  I fear that the Boy Scouts will now go the way of so many "mainline" Protestant denominations who chose to no longer give answers to hard questions, for the sake of perceived popularity.  The Boy Scouts provided one critical function that no other youth organization did:  they provided a vehicle for the moral formation of our youth.  Whether one agreed or disagreed with specific stands, and regardless of whether they succeeded in particular cases, one knew that the organization was in the business of forming solid citizens.  It was never a surprise when a Medal of Honor winner was an Eagle Scout.  One could choose to join or not join, but you knew what you were getting when you or your son joined.  And while there is always some risk of tomfoolery when putting adolescent males together in a group, the boys knew they were safe, and they knew from Day One that to join, you had to know that a Scout was expected to be "morally straight".



Now that the Scouts have found new meaning in "morally straight" by way of a majority vote, and after being bullied into it, all that is now subject to question and relativism.  The reason for the organization's existence, namely the moral formation of our male youth, is essentially undermined for the sake of political correctness.  And I am certain that membership will suffer as a result.  Worst of all, this is being lost at a moment in our history when it is needed most.

I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

2)  I strongly question and challenge the motivation of the Board in changing this policy.  Here in Dallas (home of the HQ of the BSA), there has been newspaper article after newspaper article stating how the prime movers behind the change in policy have been the heads of AT&T and Ernst & Young, both of whom are on the board of directors of the BSA.  And each newspaper article states that these two board members hold those positions at their respective companies.

I strongly suspect the motivations of these two board members in pushing this change in policy, on the grounds that they are in part gaining proper politically correct mileage for their respective companies by doing so.  We've all seen the militant gay organizations vilify Target for supporting a PAC who supported a candidate who didn't favor gay marriage.  What better way to get some props for your company among the right people than getting the Boy Scouts to change their gay policy?

Certainly if this were undertaken by these two out of personal conviction, they could have done this behind closed doors at the BSA.  But they couldn't have collected their thirty pieces of silver had they done so, of course.

3)  Finally, a minor practical matter that some poor assistant Scoutmasters are going to have to face (this is the kind of crap decision that would often get delegated to me).  We're talking tent assignments on the campout.  

Let's say your troop has one or two "openly gay" Scouts.  Remember, we're not talking adolescent confusion over same-sex attraction, we're talking "openly" gay.  How do you assign tents on the weekend campout?  Do you put the openly gay Scout in with an "openly" hetero Scout? If so, I'd like to listen as you explain this to the parents of the hetero Scout.  If not, what is the alternative -- do you put the "openly gay" Scouts together in the same tent?  I seriously doubt you want any part of that.

Worse yet, what if your openly gay Scout is a seventeen-year-old who is the patrol leader, leading younger Scouts (as young as 11)?  What sort of dynamics do you have to face there?

I've got no answers.  Just raising the questions.


The culture war continues.  Remember, this battle was never about the Boy Scouts, just like same-sex marriage is not about marriage. . .




11 comments:

  1. What do you figure, 2 years till they bravely permit openly gay adult leaders? 4 years till the BSA policy against allowing Catholic parishes to charter troops is fully implemented?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Pericles said, claims from an equal party that are urged as commands have only one meaning, and that is slavery.

      I see in today's paper that the so-called "Human Rights Campaign" is continuing whatever boycott or other action they've been taking, because of the ban on gay adult leaders.

      We may as well start forming Junior K of C or the like -- it is just a matter of time.

      Delete
  2. Pauli: "Just raising the questions."

    To me the answer has been made rather simple now: DO NOT put your kids in the Boy Scouts.

    Robert Baden-Powell must be spinning in his grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still guessing that the individual units will continue to be outstanding organizations for boys and young men. Much is controlled at the troop level, and national doesn't need to be involved much. Actually, the question doesn't come up, except when agitated from outside. I'd guess that the number of Scouts who have been "turned away" for being gay is vanishingly small.

      Again, it's not about the Boy Scouts, and it never was.

      Delete
    2. Oengus, Pikkumatti wrote this post. Thanks, Pikkumatti.

      I'm still too upset to comment on this, but less upset than I was last year when I realized it was coming. I'm working on a strategy for dealing with this nonsense--if it ever presents itself. I have 2 kids in cubs, one in boy scouts and I'm a den leader. I intend to have no "open gayness" anywhere in close proximity, and I will raise a stink about it if I see it. Kick me out; there's are tons of dads lining up to volunteer (not).

      Delete
    3. I'm still guessing that the individual units will continue to be outstanding organizations for boys and young men. Much is controlled at the troop level, and national doesn't need to be involved much.

      This is true. At this point I'm thinking there will be some "test cases" going on where activists prod gay kids to sign up and see what happens. They'll probably come up with pink or rainbow "Diversity Award" pins or something and some troops and packs will promote these and wear them to jamborees, etc.

      I do think there is now an even greater call for alternatives to BSA. I hope it could be cross-denominational.

      Delete
  3. The Knights of Columbus have the Squire scouts and there is the North American Explorer scouts. The Protestants have been quitely sendign their boys to Royal Rangers for years. It's time to get proactive. The BSA has caved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Going by what Patrick Deneen had to say, it looks to me that the queering of the Boy Scouts is just one small cog in the larger agenda: creating the all powerful, bio-political, and tyrannical Beast Liberal State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly what I mean above by the battle not being about the Boy Scouts.

      The gay agenda is a fascist trojan horse -- it masquerades as furthering civil rights and civil liberties, but it is instead the opposite. It is a step to a statist tyranny.

      In order for the all-encompassing State to assume the role of definer of our values and source of all goodness, all non-state institutions and values must first be destroyed. So traditional non-state institutions that are based on natural God-given values rather than state values, such as the Scouts, the Church, and the family, are targets of the fascists.

      There are so many harbingers of this recently. Obama's Ohio State commencement address (self-rule means big government) is a good example. Here's another chilling example, describing how language is to be used to bait the hook.

      Sadly, so many can be bought off by the fascists so cheaply. All it takes is pat-on-the-head acceptance of one's sexual proclivities as just-as-good, or legalization of one's drug of choice. They think they are being given freedom, but they are really being handed shackles to wear.

      Delete
    2. That Winning Words Project site is hilarious. "Republicans use language to control the way you think, so here's a list of words you are forbidden to use."

      Delete
  5. The Columbian Scouts are a good option!
    Jonathan Carpenter

    ReplyDelete