Teaching Bigotry to Youth

Posted by Bob Lord

Video-tc-130207-boy-scouts-thumbWideThis photo from todays' NY Times says it all. Think of what the parents (or Scout leaders) of these impressionable kids are teaching them. Gays are immoral. Gays aren't the same as "us." Gays are something less than we are. We shouldn't associate with gays.

Chances are that one or two of the boys in this photo happens to be gay. What mental anguish is being inflicted on him? 

Hopefully, at least a few of these kids will find teachers or other role models and reject the garbage they've been fed. Otherwise, we're looking at our next generation of bigots. 

0 responses to “Teaching Bigotry to Youth

  1. Is that all you have?

  2. Well, I can’t fault you for being unaware of what you don’t know. That’s the most troubling aspect of ignorance — those who are ignorant are by necessity unaware of their own ignorance.

  3. LOL! And you say it is my understanding of constitutional law that is lacking! ROTFLMAO

    The law may indeed evolve over time but until such time as you can convince two-thirds of the legislature and two-thirds of the states to overturn the first amendment the scouts will be free to exercise their religious rights and associate with whomever they wish. (Stare decisis et non quieta movere)

    As to tax law, these are decidable by nearly whatever whim besets the sitting congress. So, in essence, all 501(c)(3) exemptions could disappear tomorrow. Your point, therefore, is irrelevant.

  4. Well, now it’s your reading skills that fall short. I said “Thus far, the Scouts have avoided the loss of their 501(c)(3) status under that standard, but once gays achieve the protections afforded to other groups, and they will…” My point was that the law evolves over time. At some point, this sort of dicrimination against gays by a quasi-public tax-exempt organization will not be permitted. If you think the issues decided in the Scouts v. Dale case can never be revisited, better think again.

  5. Your understanding of constitutional law and tax law is woefully deficient.

  6. “Other organizations that discriminate”

    Then bye bye:

    Congressional Black Caucus
    Big Sisters
    College Fraternities
    LPGA
    National Asssociation of Black Journalists
    Miss America Pagent
    NFL
    NAACP
    League of Women Voters
    Big Brothers
    AARP
    B’nai Brith
    College Sororities
    et al……………………………………….

  7. Thank you, Bess. Willfull discrimination is NEVER ok.

  8. Boy Scouts, like other organizations that discriminate, will go the way of the dinosaurs, if they don’t change with the times. Morally straight means morally straight. It’s not a reference to sexuality. A gay person can’t be morally straight? Get over it.

  9. “costly fight they ultimately will lose.”

    Really? I believe they have already won. See USSC, Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale.

    “But putting aside constitutional doctrine, the problem with what you’re saying is that if kids want to engage in scouting activities, the only practical choice is the Boy Scouts. If a gay (or atheist) kid is not allowed to join the Boy Scouts, he effectively is precluded from engaging in those activiities.”

    What precludes them from forming their own group to engage in those activities?

  10. If the Boy Scouts were not a tax-exempt organization, your argument might be somewhat stronger. But tax-exempt status, especially 501(c)(3) status, makes an organization quasi-public, which carries with it some restrictions to which organizations generally aren’t subjected. For example, a 501(c)(3) organization can’t discriminate on the basis of skin color. The standard articulated in the Bob Jones University case is that a 501(c)(3) organization “must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest . . . [and] must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred.”

    Thus far, the Scouts have avoided the loss of their 501(c)(3) status under that standard, but once gays achieve the protections afforded to other groups, and they will, the Scouts will be forced to make a change. By all appearances, the Scouts’ National Council has recognized this and is looking to avoid what could become an embarassing, costly fight they ultimately will lose.

    But putting aside constitutional doctrine, the problem with what you’re saying is that if kids want to engage in scouting activities, the only practical choice is the Boy Scouts. If a gay (or atheist) kid is not allowed to join the Boy Scouts, he effectively is precluded from engaging in those activiities. And that’s discriminatory.

    Looking for an analogy? Consider the Mormon Church’s discrimination against Blacks, which lasted all the way until 1978. We’re 35 years out from that, and very few Mormons regret the change they made in 1978. Instead, they value the addition of their Black members. 35 years from now, Scouts will feel the same ways about gay scouts and scout leaders.

    So, the only real difference between you and Cheri is that she’s already where you will be 35 years from now.

  11. Again, your critical thinking falls short. Yes, “morally straight” carries a broader meaning generally. But the specific context here is a protest against the admission of gays. So, the unavoidable implication is that these Scouts consider gays to be immoral. If that’s not so, why would they have that message on the sign? The clear message, in this context is, “Gays are not morally straight, so they should not be permitted to be Scouts, because Scouts would no longer be morally straight if gays were admitted as Scouts.” If that is not the intended message of that sign, exactly what do you think the intended message of that sign, IN THIS CONTEXT?

    So, going back to your first comment, yes, you missed the sign that expresed that view.

  12. So the questions become: Why would an atheist demand to be allowed to be part of a group that espouses faith in God? Why would a homosexual demand membership in a group that espouses the value of chastity and heterosexual sex in the bonds of legal matrimony? I cannot answer with any certainty either of those questions but I can say that, my experience has taught me that if you have to force someone to like you and accept you, odds are it’s likely that they will do neither.

    Is it not possible that atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, and scouts have a right to their own distinct values and associations?

  13. Morally straight has been part of the Scout oath for over 100 years and carries a much broader meaning than your narrow interpretation seems to imply.

    And who said anything about “lack” of values?

    Do you have a serious question?

  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale

    The Boy Scouts of America’s official position is that atheists and agnostics cannot participate as Scouts or adult Scout Leaders in its traditional Scouting programs.

    The Boy Scouts of America’s official position is to “not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals” as Scouts or adult Scout Leaders in its traditional Scouting programs.[16][17][18]

  15. Well, based on the sign in the upper right of the picture, it would seem the Scouts have labeled gays immoral. By all appearances, the sign reads “Keep Scouts Morals Straight.” Yes, I know all the letters aren’t captured in the picture, but what else could the sign possibly say? In the context of a protest against a decision by the Boy Scouts to end the discrimination against gays, is not the clear implication of the sign that the Scouts who are protesting consider gays immoral?

    In your first comment, you referred to Scouts having different “values.” What are those values that the Scouts have and the gays lack? Tolerance? No. Equality? No. Diversity? No. Open Mindedness? No. Enlightenment? No. Compassion? No. Sensitivity? No. Please let us know precisely what values the Scouts have that the gays lack, such that the Scouts should not allow gays to join.

  16. Once again Cheri, who has labeled the “gays” immoral?

    Also Chrei, I am sure you would agree that the morals, or I should say lack thereof, of the abusers referenced in your posted article would stand in sharp contrast to ideals of Scouting. So your point is?

    Are you trying to insinuate that parents are recklessly allowing their children to somehow be subjected to “immoral” people already and, therefore, their arguments are invalid? Are they just as guilty then for sending their children to schools where it is much more likely that they will suffer abuse?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21392345/ns/us_news-education/t/ap-sexual-misconduct-plagues-us-schools/

    In a perfect world Cheri those “poor boys” and GIRLS wouldn’t be subjected to immoral PEOPLE. But, since the perfect world does not yet exist, you would hope that an organization attempting, as best as imperfect humans are able, to create an environment where that is the case would be celebrated not hatefully attacked.

  17. Yes, because, you know, those poor boys shouldn’t have to be subjected to those immoral “gays”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/boys-scouts-sex-abuse-report

  18. “Gays are immoral. Gays aren’t the same as “us.” Gays are something less than we are. We shouldn’t associate with gays”

    Did I miss the signs that expressed those views in this photo or are people projecting those views?

    How dare the Scouts not allow them access to their group just because they have different values or practices. The fact that these associations were formed expressly for the purpose of enjoying and strengthening shared values is irrelevant isn’t it? There is no intolerance, bigotry, or hate being directed toward the Scouts is there?

    The demand to be tolerated has morphed into a demand to be accepted which in turn has resulted in a cry and demand that the rights of others to their own sets of values and associations be set aside and denied.