The Unfairness Trap: BSA On A Collision Course

The BSA National Council held a secret ballot vote to decide if the organization would allow openly gay boys into the organization. 757 voted for, 475 voted against. 

Timeless Values?

Albert Mohler summarizes this succinctly (link at bottom):

In 2000, the B.S.A. prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court when the nation’s highest court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude openly gay boys and leaders from the organization, so long as that exclusion is based in one of the organization’s core convictions — an “expressive message.” The B.S.A. won the case because that is exactly what they claimed. They argued that excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders from Scouting was necessary and required by the Scout Oath. [emphasis added]

In my previous article about the BSA policy change, I said this:

If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.

So now we know the answer to that. The BSA National Council has decided that its creeds are not timeless, but arbitrary. It is thereby implicitly admitting to wrongful discrimination against homosexuals for over two decades, since the policy was enacted. Let the litigation begin!

A Time to Tell

The BSA commissioned a video in the '80s which at the time I joined was required watching for all boys entering the program. This was called "A Time To Tell," and acted out 3 specific scenarios which were introduced through the context of a conversation between three friends after school. Its purpose was to educate the young boys (ages 10-12 when entering the program) to "Recognize, Resist and Report" sexual molestation. I think it might be worth introducing to the general public. It largely speaks for itself.

More info: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/boy_scouts_and_sexual_abuse_what_will_happen_to_it_happened_to_me.html

Unfairness

Now that the BSA has opened up its doors to homosexual youth, it's unfair to keep the doors shut to atheists any longer. It's actually ludicrous to allow the former and not the latter. Atheists can, at least in theory, be just as moral as any monotheist, with the only difference being their rejection of belief in a deity. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an evil in each of those religions, and so if those who break the law should be allowed in, by what standard do you aim to keep out those who do not break the law? Maybe one could suppose that even if "morally straight" has been abandoned, the BSA will still attempt to uphold "duty to God" as a point of the Scout Oath. This would exclude atheists, certainly. But isn't moral straightness part of one's duty to God? To purport that active homosexuals honor the God of any faith--Christianity, Judaism or Islam; even the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism) seem largely to oppose the notion that homosexual activity can coexist with religious piety -- to thus purport that homosexuals can honor the "duty to God" aspect of the Scout Oath is ludicrous, and therefore if they can be allowed into the program while rejecting this "timeless value," then so can atheists, by the same standard. We have thus utterly destroyed the Scout Oath. All that's left is this:

"Oh my honor, I will do my duty to my country, and to keep myself physically strong." 

Permit me to scoff derisively.

Prediction: the BSA will soon have to give in to further pressure and allow atheists to join. 

The question is, will atheist boys be allowed in first, or homosexual leaders? We could start a betting pool. Anyone interested? I'll stake my claim on homosexual adults. Any takers?

Further Reading 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-at-the-brink-the-moment-of-decision-arrives/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rip-boy-scouts-of-america/

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: Dr. Phil, Open Marriages and Homosexuality

There's a connection? 

Yup.

As you may have noticed if you've been reading from the bottom of the blog to the top, I'm gathering some initial material for the blog by going through my Journal and pasting certain entries I've made over the past year or so. Here is my reaction to a Dr. Phil episode I watched (I rarely watch t.v. at all, and this is why):

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

                        I turned on Dr. Phil for the first time in a long time (just after coming out of the bathroom, having read the first 30-some pages of Hadji, which is the Swedish title of The Hajj, by Leon Uris. I’d started reading it last year but only made it through the first 2 chapters), and he had on two african-american couples who were involved in an “open marriage.” The arrogant ignorance coming out of their mouths was disturbing. The wife is apparently a blogger, and she loves to run her mouth—she interrupted Dr. Phil multiple times and she even got shouted down by the audience. 

The husband said he thought the #1 thing that causes STDs is fear. Because fear causes stress which compromises your immune system. I kid you not. The wife was boastful, touting her ‘list of accomplishments,’ (i.e. they had a tough life, and if the kids turn out messed up it could be from any one of the other things—their house burning, moving, etc, rather than their very open ‘marriage’ that their kids know about) and talked about how she watched porn with her daughter (the point was to be ‘educational,’ but that doesn’t excuse it. She didn’t see a problem with showing her that). She ended her soliloquy by trying to make the point that their household was ‘good,’ or ‘inclusive,’ accepting, etc. by proudly stating that they’ll be totally okay with their children bringing home girlfriends or boyfriends that they’re having sex with. She’s so blind to her own lusts that she doesn’t realize this is not something that earns you points for being a good parent. Quite the opposite. 

The thing that stood out about her and her husband was that they reminded me of the other African-american couple that I had encountered in Borders (the bookstore) that were so sold on astrology and tried to justify to me how remarkable and personally enlightening it was, and then, how blind and ignorant I was for not believing it. This woman did the same to the audience. She was defensive and puffed herself up with accolades to justify her desire to be allowed to do what she’s doing without consequence, without anyone telling her she’s doing something wrong. 

Which reminds me, one point she made was “there are 33,000 religions in this country—which one should I teach my kids?” to her mother-in-law, who repeatedly said on the show that she was concerned for the children. Naturally, that makes all the sense in the world—it is the rejection of the Biblical God and His perfect law that leads people to justify these perversions. Noteworthy is the fact that she tried to refer to society’s acceptance of homosexual relationships in order to justify her ‘open marriage’ arrangement. Ultimately, those who accept and promote homosexuality have no ground to stand on to oppose having multiple partners, because the only ground to stand on is the Bible, and it must be rejected in order to embrace homosexuality.

~ Rak Chazak