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

Pants Adjustment

Today I saw something I rarely see.

It was in the 80s today, temperature-wise. Today happened to mark the first day of the year when I actually felt uncomfortable, at times, due to the heat -- or more accurately, the sun bearing down on my head. Many people were wearing shorts; however, due to the unexpectedly abrupt increase in the warmth, a great many, myself included, still had on long pants. I did decide to wear a t-shirt, before I knew how warm it was outside. Lucky guess.

As I was walking on campus, I passed by a number of students who were taking advantage of the balmy conditions and were hanging around on the grass. In one small group, a girl was standing on the outside of it. Presumably thinking she was discrete, with no one nearby behind her to notice, she engaged in some pretty obvious pushing, pulling, tucking etc of her shorts from the back side.

It interested me, not out of any perverted interest, but because such "adjustment" is not something you see girls do often. They're far more discreet than guys, who will often jostle themselves in quite public places because frankly, fixing the discomfort takes precedence over being 'socially correct.'

It caused me to think of this image:

Which I think captures the cultural context -- because girls are so much...shall we say, "better behaved?" than guys, it's given many of us the impression that some bodily functions simply don't occur in that gender. When was the last time you ever caught a girl in the act of farting? (On rare occasion you might see one belch) But us guys even make jokes to the extent of intentionally farting on each other. Not that this is wrong, or anything. It simply reveals a different attitude towards bodily functions. By and large, guys think they're funny. Now, we know females have the same basic physical needs that we males do...at least in theory...and that's why it's a joke. It's also a joke because those who live in our society know exactly what it's referring to. The mystery of how women manage to cultivate an appearance, in the eyes of men, of being superior physical beings not afflicted with yucky stuff like farts and poop, which have the potential to be turn-offs.

For this reason, I viewed the girl I saw tugging on her pants in about the same way that a bird-watcher might react to an uncommon species of bird -- as a rarity that few people ever encounter. It made me chuckle.

~ Rak Chazak