This page was last updated on February 1, 2013.
Scouts should stop playing straight; Kirstin Kennedy – BCT editorial board; Beaver County Times; January 30, 2013. This editorial appeared only in the print edition of the BCT. I apologize for any transcription errors.
Like Messrs. Patrick O’Shea and J.D. Prose, Ms. Kennedy is a part-time BCT reporter in addition to being a pundit.
Below is a detailed critique of portions of this column.
“The word on the LGBT street is that the Boy Scouts of America, famed for their widespread charity work, keen outdoorsy-ness, and stringent anti-gay policy, may lift their ban on openly homosexual members and leaders.”
[RWC] In the interest of disclosure, I was active in Scouting (Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Explorer) for about 13 years and I am an Eagle Scout. As I recall, all our leaders were the fathers (and mothers in Cub Scouts) of former and current Scouts. In addition to the conventional teaching of skills, our leaders taught us by example. Unfortunately, almost all of these generous parents who helped make us better men are no longer with us. To refer to these people as “ignorant and intolerant,” as Ms. Kennedy and the BCT editorial board does below, is sad.
The BCT would like readers to believe this editorial is about the “ban on openly homosexual members and leaders” in the BSA or what is best for the boys who are or would be members. It is not. I don’t know anyone on the BCT editorial board, but I can spot leftist tactics. This attack on the BSA is simply a battle in the leftist war to destroy groups whose principles and/or activities don’t fall in line with leftist dogma. Should the BSA go ahead with the proposed cave-in and manage to survive, lefties like the BCT will be back with some other attack. People have already sued the BSA about religion. As with the homosexuality lawsuits, the BSA has prevailed in court.
The Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) also has been under attack but it started caving in a long time ago. For example, in 1992 a girl’s family sued the GSUSA because its oath, like the Boy Scouts’, mentions God. The oath begins, “On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country … .” While the GSUSA didn’t change the oath, they caved in 1993 and allow girls to substitute whatever they want for “To serve God.” You’ll find an even more incredible GSUSA capitulation later in this critique.
Attacks like these will happen over and over until Scouting no longer resembles Scouting as we know/knew it.
“The word on the LGBT street?” The BSA spokesman made the announcement of possible change. The proposal would allow the sponsor of each pack, troop, and post make the choice for themselves. Maybe Ms. Kennedy needs to rely more on real news sources and less on “the LGBT street.” For those of you not current with the lingo on this topic, LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
If the BSA is going to give up its principles, it should have the guts to take responsibility. The National Council proposal simply dumps the decision on local sponsors less able to defend themselves against the bullies.
Note Ms. Kennedy failed to mention the bullying of the BSA. When the BSA wouldn’t cave to their direct bullying, activists chose to attack the BSA indirectly by bullying businesses that contribute to the BSA. Among the businesses that caved and cut off contributions are Intel, Merck, and UPS.
Ms. Kennedy refers to the BSA’s alleged “stringent anti-gay policy.” Does the BSA demonstrate against homosexuals? No. Does the BSA want to deprive homosexuals of any constitutional rights? No. Does the BSA demand homosexual-oriented groups change their principles so heterosexuals would feel comfortable joining? No. Did I ever hear one of my Scout leaders say anything bad about homosexuals? No.
What about social groups? I belong to a club of which I can’t become a full member because I don’t meet the club’s ancestry requirements. Should I sue the club to change their rules so I can become a full member? No, the thought would never cross my mind.
What we have are people who claim they want to join a group and demand the group change its principles to accommodate the applicant. We see this all the time regarding religions. These people appear to believe religions are little more than social clubs that should change their membership rules to adjust to society. Those people miss the whole point of religion. If you don’t like a religion, choose another. Religions are not supposed to change to accommodate member beliefs; members are supposed to change to accommodate a religion’s teachings. Imagine what would happen if a BCT job applicant demanded the BCT adopt a conservative editorial philosophy.
When it comes to support for banning behavior it doesn’t like, the BCT knows what it’s talking about. From March 2005 through April 2011, the BCT published at least 57 editorials in support of banning smoking on private property. In “Silence, please,” the BCT lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but because the editorial author found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.” Since 2005, the BCT treated us to at least 65 editorials about obesity. In “Feel free to sin,” the BCT appeared to support fines (euphemistically referred to as “taxes”) for buying “unhealthy foods.” Allegedly, the fines would subsidize government-approved foods deemed too expensive. I could go on, but you get the idea.
What is “keen outdoorsy-ness?” I wonder who told Ms. Kennedy what Scouts do.
Finally, if you think Ms. Kennedy believes any of the nice things about the Scouts sprinkled in this piece, I encourage you to read it closer. In any case, Ms. Kennedy couldn’t keep her real opinion in check and blurted it out in the final paragraph.
“But an America that elected a president who openly supports gay marriage, a country that legalized it in nine states and the District of Columbia, and a nation that saw the termination of the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy should not be surprised about the policy change; we should be surprised that it has taken this long.”
[RWC] Since homosexuals already can get married throughout the country, by “gay marriage” the BCT must be referring to same-sex “marriage.”
As for President Obama, he opposed same-sex “marriage” until he was for it during his 2012 election campaign, so take his “open support” for what it’s worth.
As for “a country that legalized it in nine states …,” simple math tells us same-sex “marriage” is banned either by constitution or statute in a large majority of states. Ms. Kennedy also failed to note via the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex “marriages.” As of August 2012, 31 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages, including left-of-the-left California. All but two of those states passed their amendments since 2000 and, with a few exceptions, they all passed with approval votes in excess of 60%, including some in the high 70s and 80s.
“What do the Scouts stand to gain by keeping their organization strictly heterosexual? Their core set of beliefs represents well-rounded and diverse group of young men, not some sort of exclusive, secret society.”
[RWC] Here are other questions Ms. Kennedy should ask. “What do [LGBT groups] stand to gain by keeping their organization[s] strictly [LGBT]?” What do the organizers of the Miss Black America Pageant stand to gain by limiting participation to black women? What does the Congressional Black Caucus stand to gain by limiting participation to black members of Congress? I could go on, but you get the idea.
Ms. Kennedy thinks the BSA is “some sort of exclusive, secret society?”
“According to Scout Law, a Scout must strive to be: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”
[RWC] Based on her language, it appears Ms. Kennedy knows nothing about Scouting. For example, Ms. Kennedy refers to “Scout Law” as you would “federal law.” Here is the complete Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent.”
“These 12 traits are not exclusive to heterosexuals. The Scouts are a club and exercise a legal level of restricted membership rights. But all young people would benefit from these traits, not just individuals who identify themselves as straight.”
[RWC] In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA “ban on openly homosexual members and leaders.” In its ruling, the Court quoted a previous ruling in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston (1995): “While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.”
While we’re on the Scout Law, what’s the BCT’s position on the “reverent” portion? After all, you can’t be reverent [based on the description in my Boy Scout Handbook (Sixth edition - 1962 printing)] if you’re an agnostic or atheist. Should that part of the Scout Law be jettisoned because “all young people would benefit from these traits, not just individuals who” believe in God?
“The Scout Oath, an appendage to their Law, asks that the young men do their best to do ‘duty to God and my country’ and that they keep themselves ‘physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.’”
[RWC] Again Ms. Kennedy doesn’t appear to know what she’s writing about. The Scout Oath (or Promise) is just that, an oath or promise. It is not “an appendage to their Law.” The entire Scout Oath is:
“On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
“Thanks to the First Amendment, everyone can do duty to God; thanks to the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ anyone can do duty to our country. To be ‘physically strong’ and ‘mentally awake,’ obviously, depend on an individual, gay or straight.”
[RWC] I don’t know her education or experience, but it appears Ms. Kennedy doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitution and our other founding documents. Otherwise, Ms. Kennedy would not have written “Thanks to the First Amendment, everyone can do duty to God.” “Everyone can do duty to God” without the First Amendment. Most of the Bill of Rights was added just to make sure we understood the un-amended Constitution. For example, the Declaration of Independence says “all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It’s fairly obvious our country’s Founders believed all rights belonged to “We the People” by default, and the only powers of government are those granted by “the governed.”
“But the clause of moral straightness gives some pause. To that, we must realize that children should not be sexualized. The Scouts teach children how to become strong men; they don’t teach them whom and how to love.”
[RWC] This appears to be gibberish.
“Since 1980, the Girl Scouts of America have maintained a nondiscrimination clause. The organization was not tarnished or diminished by this; it was strengthened in its mission to create an environment for healthy and active young girls.”
[RWC] As I mentioned earlier, the GSUSA ran off the tracks a long time ago. When a seven-year-old boy wanted to join, the Girl Scouts of Colorado said, “If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” I have neither experience nor expertise in behavioral science and I’ve never been a parent, but is it a good idea to let a seven-year-old boy (or girl) think he’s (she’s) a girl (boy)?
On what does Ms. Kennedy base her assertion the GSUSA “was strengthened in its mission to create an environment for healthy and active young girls?”
“Leading kids, whether it comes from a gay or a straight, is a huge responsibility, not something bestowed on just anyone.
“If a gay fits the credentials to be a Scout leader, what does ‘gay’ matter? Is there a more safe and healthy environment for children to learn and accept each other than in an organization that teaches such strong human values?”
[RWC] In this paragraph, Ms. Kennedy refers to the BSA as “an organization that teaches such strong human values,” but in the next refers to the BSA’s “ignorance and intolerance.” That’s why above I warned about Ms. Kennedy really believing any of the nice things about the Scouts she sprinkled in this piece. This was just a tactic to make readers believe the BCT wants the best for the boys and isn’t pursuing a leftist agenda.
“So, here’s hoping that the Boy Scouts take a big and belated leap from ignorance and intolerance and join the rest of America.”
[RWC] You have to love it; believe as the BCT or you’re “ignorant and intolerant.” I’d like to see the source of the data supporting the assertion “the rest of America” believes as the BCT.
Does anyone want to bet how long it will take for the BCT to address the “ignorance and intolerance” of those who run the Miss Black America Pageant, the Congressional Black Congress, and so on?
As I wrote at the beginning, the attack on the BSA has nothing to do with what is best for the boys who are or would be members.
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.