- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
Ryan Andresen Denied Eagle Scout Award, Kicked Out of Boy Scouts for Being Gay
Ryan Andresen, who earned an Eagle Scout medal for opposing bullying, was denied the award and kicked out of the Boy Scouts after announcing he was gay.
Ryan, 17, was a Boy Scout for nearly 12 years in Moraga, California, and fulfilled every requirement to earn an Eagle Scout medal, reports the Daily Mail.
His mom Karen Andresen told NBC News: "I want everyone to know that [the Eagle award] should be based on accomplishment, not your sexual orientation. Ryan entered Scouts when he was six years old and in no way knew what he was."
Karen Andresen told NBC says Ryan completed every requirement to earn the Eagle Scout award including his final project, a 'Tolerance Wall,' which opposes bullying and is illustrated the 288 tiles with drawings and messages from children.
Ryan's local Boy Scout council released this statement to the Mercury News in response to the controversy: "Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God,' and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation."
"While the Boy Scouts of America did not proactively ask for this information, based on his statements and after discussion with his family, he is being informed that he is no longer eligible for membership in Scouting."
Ryan' father Eric Andresen is filing an appeal with the Boy Scouts, while Karen Andresen has collected nearly 112,000 signatures petitioning the anti-gay policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to freedom of association and could exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
To quote Tom Lehrer's gag
To quote Tom Lehrer's gag verbatim (I think), "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of Boy Scouts of America." I therefore have no interest to declare in this matter. However, I have done some research, and hope therefore to shed a little light on this clash of cultures, by simply reporting what I have discovered.
"the idea of a homosexual identity or a homosexual person is only about 100 years old" [American Psychiatric Association]
http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation
That's about the same age as scouting itself, or almost. In other words, scouting is as old as homosexual identity itself, or slightly older. There was same-sex sexual activity before then, but, since the world began, the record does not show that it had occurred to the intelligentsia to view it in the way in which we are nowadays teaching our children to view it. At least, not if the American Psychiatric Association is to be trusted on this question.
Arguably, and however commonplace the mistake, it is arrogance to suppose that we are cleverer than earlier generations, or more enlightened, or more virtuous, because we have different cultural interpretations of the same phenomena. We should not find it surprising, or shocking, that scouting's legacy ethos takes scant account of recent shifts in our cultural interpretations, which themselves are by no means uncontested. It was there first, to all practical intents and purposes.
The following article shows some of the problems that have beset the scouting movement over the years.
____________________________________________________________
Boy Scout files reveal long history of child sex abuse cases
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-usa-boyscouts-abuse-idUSBRE89H0ZF20121018
____________________________________________________________
The Reuter article catalogues a long history of male-on-male sexual abuse of boy scouts. Despite the fact that the abuse is male-on-male, the Reuter report studiously avoids using any words that contain the prefix "homo", or the slang word "gay". But this political correctness is extremely modern, and, once again, contested. One has only to look at this message board to see that.
The present-day partial distancing from one another of the gay movement, and the minor attracted persons movement, is even more recent than the splitting of the movement for the emanicipation of both groups, into two separate movements, one for the emancipation of each group.
Viewed through the modern eyes of those who have been properly re-educated in the modern distinction between being "gay" and being a pederast, or "man-boy love" enthusiast, clearly the scouting movement is being bigoted, discriminatory, reactionary, hate-filled, and so on.
However, the histories of the gay movement and of the scouting movement, which were born at approximately the same time in history, and which have grown up side by side for a century or so, aware of one another, and which have interacted in the past - not always well, should render the vile, reactionary attitudes exhibited by the leadership of scouting more understandable, to anybody able to see both sides of a case that arouses opposing views.
Undoubtedly, scouting itself has harmed children in the past, by insufficient vigilance to maintain a cordon sanitaire between its members and persons who prefer male-on-male sexual activity, whether or not this preference for male-on-male sex is called "gay", or called "paedophilia" instead, because the victims are under 18. Perhaps some in scouting are taking the view that one cannot be too careful, where children are concerned. Far be it from me to say that this wanton bigotry is right. However, I submit that it ought to be understandable, given the histories of scouting, and homosexuality.
We are mostly civilised and educated enough here, to know that, nowadays, only male-on-male sexual activity with a boy or man over 18 is "homosexuality", whereas male-on-male sexual activity with the same boy the day BEFORE his 18th birthday is DEFINITELY NOT "homosexuality" any more - it is "paedophilia". We must educate the less advanced leaders of scouting, not condemn them. Only when they understand the distinctions that we have been taught to make, will they see the truth, and become only too happy to repent of a century of homophobia - a homophobia that (almost, or just) pre-dates the invention of homosexuality itself.
We who are so wise, can afford to be patient. Tomorrow belongs to us. (NAMBLA's golden dawn won't come until the day after.)
He isn't gay; he's more like
He isn't gay; he's more like happy. He isn't being Gay; He's being Ryan Anderson.
I'd be proud to be the mother
I'd be proud to be the mother of a young man who is this courageous.
Attitudes seem to be changing towards the BSA. Many of their financial donors have severed ties as a result of their policies. (You might find it interesting to follow the link. I was surprised and impressed to read the names of some of the companies and individuals who have taken a stand.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Loss_of_support
This is a very great point
This is a very great point you make. Courage is NOT joining a private organization that has a LONG history, with clearly stated public views and opinions on sexual orientation, and moral conduct. The Boy Scout Oath which is recited by all boys regularly, if not in every meeting (depending on the troop) also makes clear the mission of the scouting program and the promises that each Scout makes. This same reasoning could be compared to you complaining that your boy had shortness of breath after soccer practice. I would refer you to the very first link I found when I typed in "Boy Scout Oath" to my internet browser (in other words, you don't really have to dig to find out the boy scouts position on this, it's not hidden in the fine print)
http://www.boyscouttrail.com/boy-scouts/scout-oath.asp
"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.
When making a promise or oath, be sure you know what you are promising..."
The most major role I have as a father, is to teach my children natural consequences. There are consequences for ALL choices. Are you not teaching your son the wrong ideas if you encourage him to join a private boys organization and then encourage him NOT to follow the rules? If you don't like the rules of any private organization, then participate in voicing your opinion of how the rules should change BEFORE you join OR don't join at all.
Further,to be "morally straight" (a part of the above referenced Boy Scout Oath), means to not only be moral, but to be morally straight. The word straight in this context, admittedly has nothing to do with ones sexual orientation, notwithstanding, the definition of straight means "direct, without circumlocution, frank, candid, and unbending" Like it or not, the Boy Scouts of America has COURAGEOUSLY stated their position publicly, made it a part of an Oath that each member takes, AND last but certainly not least, has lost HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from corporate and private sponsors by not deviating from this long held view.
In my book, I like their version of COURAGE a lot better than the courage that you are describing. You are exactly right in your assessment that attitudes are changing towards the BSA, which is all the more reason that admire the organization, because they are not changing their vies of morality, duty, and honor to suit public interest. Again, if you like the view, join the organization, if you don't like their view, don't join, it's about as simple as that. I stand by the organization NOT only because of their position on the issue BUT primarily because they have been true to themselves and their stated values despite "peer pressure".
I'd give him the badge and
I'd give him the badge and then kick him out.
The scouts, like any other
The scouts, like any other private organization, have their rules and regulations. If you can't live by those rules, you don't belong there. Pretty simple. Get over it.
this is awesome i wouldn't
this is awesome i wouldn't want my son having to camp with a queer either this just goes to show that some people are not willing to let the nasty America hating liberals win.
I have to defend your right
I have to defend your right to say whatever you think and feel.
But I must ask that you teach your family to not push and shove their views on others by bullying, teasing, scorn or other force.
Discuss, march, picket all you want.
I simply hope you also preach physical restraint to all who share your views.
Well WhiteSeperatist -- I
Well WhiteSeperatist -- I wouldn't want my son going to camp with racist bigots like your family. In fact i'd go out of my way to out you for the piece of trash you are and encourage people to shun you and your family. There is no room in this society for moral midgets and narrow-minded bigots like you. Just saying.
there is nothing wrong with
there is nothing wrong with the way i believe, as a matter of fact i think gays and the liberal loving commies should all have their own little world all to them selves, that way if they are going to ruin the moral caliber that this country has then they can ruin it on their own country or town as long as i don;t have to see commies lovers and liberals and queers walk among the normal people the real Americans the real moral people.
I don't think anyone would
I don't think anyone would oppose your succession. Your views are only shared by citizens of the "little world" you already live in. If we would have NY and CA leave the union. We would have a Conservative president for the next 200 years. Morality has been reduced to a single principle and that is murder. Unfortunately, homosexuality is just another form of sexual perversion. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, infidelity and sexual promiscuity neither results in spiritual, physical, financial, or emotional hapiness. It is against natural laws to be promiscuous, whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. It costs more financially, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
I Agree with WhiteSeparatist
I Agree with WhiteSeparatist that his ilk should be segregated. Since we Americans who support the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and civil rights are in the majority & your ilk are a old, dying breed, I suggest you find an island or some other place to establish your Theocracy. Extremists throughout history have been doing this so they never have to assimilate or accept diversification. You will feel more secure among your own kind, preaching the same dogma. Of course, if you can abide by US federal laws your people could all just move into one state, like the Mormons did. All your elected officials could be just like you. Wouldn't that be better for all of us?
Liberals are NOT communists.
Liberals are NOT communists. In fact, I find that statement extremely rude and offensive. If anything it is racists and ignorance like that which is causing the moral decline in this nation. Equality under the law is the primary goal of our Constitution. It is inclusive of ALL people, irrespective of race, creed, national origin, gender and sexual orientation. After 250 years we are still fighting to achieve the foremost goal of this nation. Why would you try to destroy that? That's treasonous.
Frankly, it's none of your or my business what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms or whom are their partners in marriage. In fact, if LGBT partners were allowed to marry, there would be more stability in this society and less marginalizing of people.
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt you have the capacity to comprehend that.
You want BSA to include
You want BSA to include homosexual boys? Why? There is a seperate organization for boys (BSA) and girls (GSA), partly to let the different sexes (and attractions) to develope. If "Scouts" who attracted to people of the same sex want to have their own organization, let them. The LGBT portion of our society should not impose their beliefs upon the BSA (GSA has partially cowed themselves).
You talk about the goal of this country; BSA was given a Congressional Charter, because its values are the values that the country held. To change them is to say that Congresses vision for our countries future was wrong.
Hmm...interesting that you
Hmm...interesting that you include "creed" in your list of categories of people to protect. That includes a lot of "creeds" many wouldn't applaud, including the EXclusion of gays. "Viewpoint non-discrimination" would be a very interesting doctrine to pursue, wouldn't it?
I think the USA should join
I think the USA should join this prestigious list and simply ban Scouting all together: Scouting has been banned in certain nations and remains banned in some of them. Scouting was banned in nearly all Communist countries[citation needed], most Fascist countries[citation needed], and some other countries with authoritarian regimes such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, Malawi and Iran. Banning has caused Scouting to go underground in countries such as Poland, Franco's Spain, and Yugoslavia. The USSR banned Scouting in 1922, creating a separate Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union, which gave birth to the Pioneer Movement, still existing in some fashion in the People's Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Tajikistan. Prior to World War II, Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, and Romania disbanded Scouting. Instead, Germany created the Hitler-Jugend (Hitler Youth) organization; Mussolini had a fascist youth organization, the Balilla; and Romania under King Carol II of Romania had the Străjeria. Currently, there are no externally recognized Scouting organizations in Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Myanmar, and the People's Republic of China (except for the special administrative regions Hong Kong and Macau).
This is why religion can be
This is why religion can be so bad. It encourages false and hateful beliefs against homosexuals and an unjustified mistrust of science. It is time to send ancient myths to the rubbish pile and embrace reality. I'm really tired of stupid religious beliefs interfering with science and people's lives.
Y-A-W-N
Y-A-W-N
"False and hateful", "stupid"
"False and hateful", "stupid" beliefs? "Mistrust of science"? Wow. You really have it in for those whose worldviews aren't a match of your own.
Look, a lot of things you do everyday are outgrowths of "religious" tenets--or at least, things that most "religions" teach. Why don't you harm your neighbor? Why don't you cheat on a test? Why should you respect the property of others? (I'm giving you the benefit of assuming this describes you). It's because you have an innate sense of right and wrong, yes, but these are things every religion would endorse.
In the same way, religious teachings have always condemned a variety of sexual practices, not just same-sex relations. Show me one that approves of adultery, or pedophilia, or incest, or necrophilia. If someone comes along who thinks any of those practices are a matter of their "right" to perform them, I don't think they'd get away with saying it's "hateful" or "stupid" to hold the opposite view.
But in our age, suddenly it's just dandy for men to have sex with men. To even question it is "stupid" and "hateful", and those "anti-science" religious types should just crawl back into the hole they live in. Right?
Do you believe that, if only consenting adults are involved, anything should be permissible? OK, here you go: a 50 year old woman wants to marry a 24 year old man. You all right with that? Yes? Well, the thing is, he's her son. Still good with it?
Or let's say you've got a next door neighbor; he's 41. He tells you that his life is boring and he and his wife have decided to become part of the swinging set and hold swap parties at their home each weekend. He invites you to stop over with your wife next Saturday night and join in. Isn't he thoughtful to include you? What a nice guy, you think.
But hey--it's fine and dandy. Don't go hatin' on them or trying to "interfere." Who are you to pass judgment? Don't give me that "religion" stuff...that's "stupid."
"Look, a lot of things you do
"Look, a lot of things you do everyday are outgrowths of "religious" tenets--or at least, things that most "religions" teach. Why don't you harm your neighbor? Why don't you cheat on a test? Why should you respect the property of others? (I'm giving you the benefit of assuming this describes you). It's because you have an innate sense of right and wrong, yes, but these are things every religion would endorse."
Your'e right, most religions would endorse these values. But they don't come from a a God or gods. They come from human decency and social contracts. ---- "In the same way, religious teachings have always condemned a variety of sexual practices, not just same-sex relations. Show me one that approves of adultery, or pedophilia, or incest, or necrophilia. If someone comes along who thinks any of those practices are a matter of their "right" to perform them, I don't think they'd get away with saying it's "hateful" or "stupid" to hold the opposite view."
Some pagen religions consider sex as a sacred act, not as a necessary sin. And I'm sure they don't knock same sex unions as evil or wrong, though I don't have a source with that aside from people I know. Polygamy is practiced by at the very least fundamentalist Mormons, as is pedo/ephebophilia in the case of young marriage. ---- "But in our age, suddenly it's just dandy for men to have sex with men. To even question it is "stupid" and "hateful", and those "anti-science" religious types should just crawl back into the hole they live in. Right?"
Yes. They claim to be accepting of people. Unless those people offend any of a multitude of truly insignificant moral roadblocks that include, but are not limited to, a different religion, a different class of people, what goes on in the bedroom, where you pray, what day you pray to your particular set of gods, and whether or not you eat meat on a certain day. Question things in the world, don't damn them because they're different from you.
--- "Do you believe that, if only consenting adults are involved, anything should be permissible? OK, here you go: a 50 year old woman wants to marry a 24 year old man. You all right with that? Yes? Well, the thing is, he's her son. Still good with it?"
I'd find it a bit awkward, but if that's what they want to do, so be it. There are risks associated with incest relationships. If they want to assume those risk, let them, so long as all parties involved are consenting. Heck, it was used as a way to keep royal bloodlines pure back in the day. Who am I to judge what people do in the bedroom as being right or wrong. ---- "Or let's say you've got a next door neighbor; he's 41. He tells you that his life is boring and he and his wife have decided to become part of the swinging set and hold swap parties at their home each weekend. He invites you to stop over with your wife next Saturday night and join in. Isn't he thoughtful to include you? What a nice guy, you think."
He is thoughtful to include you, and to trust you in such an intimate way. In fact, I'm sure some marriages have been saved in this way. Again, the key is consent! Religious doctrine is a good guideline to human decency. But the thing is religious books were written by humans. They used general human decency and social contracts to codify our moral code ---- "But hey--it's fine and dandy. Don't go hatin' on them or trying to "interfere." Who are you to pass judgment? Don't give me that "religion" stuff...that's "stupid.""
Basically. When we pass judgement, doesn't that mean we're trying to take God's place? Look up Luke 6:37(http://bible.cc/luke/6-37.htm). The basic jist of it is do unto others as you want them do unto you. Once you start passing your biggoted views off as the only truth, people see you as an idiot. When religion's used as a filter to narrow one's view of reality to a little pin prick of light, they hurt themselves in the big picture.
---- ""Did you ever get the feeling the world was a tuxedo, and you were a pair of brown shoes?"--George Gobel""
Sure George. Then I stopped pretending I was a pair of tux shoes, and the world made a lot more sense.
Awesome... the divisions I
Awesome... the divisions I had got integrated with the paragraphs. Sorry about the less than pleasant read.
"Show me one that approves of
"Show me one that approves of adultery, or pedophilia, or incest, or necrophilia." Apparently you have never read the Old Testament or the Quran which both state God has exemptions for at least adultery, pedophilia & incest. It is apparent that you know nothing about Theology, world religions or the billions that have died for dogmatic faiths. The laws & rules of civilized cultures evolved from human beings who also happened to believe Gods watched over us. Of course, if these humans believed something was fair, right &just they would also believe their Gods believed this as well. Most of our basis of our laws came from the Greek & Roman empires who were not monotheists. The Jewish God was much more vicious & intolerant. But with the influence of Eastern philosophers the New Testament eliminated penalties such as stoning adulterers, homosexuals, and people who dared work on the Sabbath. People in Western Europe are already showing the way towards forcing religions to adapt to the civilized world. Young Americans are already able to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with the USA they want to be a part of. Within 25 yrs, when all these Born Again zealots have died, we'll see the New Testament interpreted as Jesus intended & in harmony with the laws of the USA.
Just because some of our
Just because some of our basic societal beliefs had some of their basis in religion doesn't mean we should accept them all today as fixtures made in stone. Our society is bigger than the Christian bible and encompasses more than the narrow beliefs of social conservatives. Some of their beliefs are antiquated and have NO bearing in a modern society. We don't live in tribes and we have a secular government that promotes equality for all. In a modern nation state the law of the country rules; not the written words of any religious text. When we die we may or may not face the rules of God (assuming you believe in her, which not everyone does.)
"Just because some of our
"Just because some of our basic societal beliefs had some of their basis in religion doesn't mean we should accept them all today as fixtures made in stone."
What, not even the one's that WERE made in stone, literally?
Even most Christians don't
Even most Christians don't believe Old Testament Bible stories are facts. I'm glad to see Evangelicals going the way of The Cowherdites & Shakers in America. I know many Born Again people in Indiana but they are all over 50 and their children & grandchildren just nod & smile when they rant. It's such a relief to know that these crazy fundamentalists are dying out.
Don't scare him with that.
Don't scare him with that. It might keep him up late.
The scout oath is: "On my
The 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." I am sure that this young man raised his hand and repeated this more than once during his 12 years of participation. He now, comes out and says, "I don't agree with the part about Duty to God, and I'm not straight..." I ask, what is the organization supposed to do??? Simply say, "OK, we will scratch that out of the oath... anybody else have something they don't like in the oath... we can scratch that out at the same time." If Ryan reached a point where he could no longer agree with the "principle" of Duty to God and "morally straight" he should have removed himself from the organization. Continuing to repeat the oath and wear the uniform showed a "lack of integrity" on his part. For him to now expect the organization to change the rules and grant him the "highest honor" is an unrealistic expectation. And any attempt to force the Boy Scouts to do so is a form of "bullying" in the highest degree. He of all people should understand that as "bullying" was the topic of his final project.
He did do his duty to God by
He did do his duty to God by being honest with everyone. That also aligned his moral compass to be straight since he wasn't lying about himself anymore.
Just because his morals aren't in line with the standard doesn't mean he's "wrong."
When my father was a scout,
When my father was a scout, they never had any reference to God in the scouting oath. This was an inclusion during the 1950's Cold War era, as with "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. These are vestiges that are out of date and no longer relevant in this post-Cold War era and should be removed if this nation is going to continue to thrive with a secular Government as per what the Founding Father's envisioned.
It says morally straight, not
It says morally straight, not sexually straight. Nor does it define which god, nor what one's duties to said god might be (at least not as you quoted."
Asking an organization supported by public funds to not engage in discrimination is not bullying.
Accepting public funds while discriminating against more than 50% of the population of the United States is the lack of integrity. If the BSA want to be an exclusive club they should demonstrate their integrity by refusing to accept funds, material support, and/or preferential treatment from every level of government in the US.
Say someone joined the
Say someone joined the Baptist Student Union back when they agreed with what Baptists stand for, attended their Bible studies, participated in evangelical outreaches, and generally lived as a believer in Jesus Christ, then later decided to make some extra income by getting into the porn biz. Do you suppose the BSU might move to toss him out on his ear--even if he had qualified to receive some meritorious award under the auspices of the BSU? Or would they, too, be "bigoted" and "discriminatory"?
For goodness sake, this teen no longer reflects the mission of the Boy Scouts. He may have "earned" an award, but he's now no longer what they are all about. Move along; thanks for your service, but we must part company now. You've left us.
Did the Baptist Student Union
Did the Baptist Student Union accept public funding, get preferential treatment in the military, accept material support from various aspects and tiers of government throughout the U.S. ?
I have no problem whatsoever with a truly private organization choosing to maintain whatever membership/award policies they like. But an organization that opts to accept public funding and material support is something else entirely.
You might be the exception,
You might be the exception, but I think most people who object to the BSA's exclusion of gays and atheists do so because they are trying to promote acceptance of both, and they hate traditional moral values that the BSA hold to.
Many go to great lengths to base it on the federal money argument, all the while simply stewing that anyone could possibly disagree with them over the moral issues involved.
I have a feeling that even if the BSA were 100% privately funded, there would be some who would make the same "tax argument" by saying BSA holds meetings, and most meetings have to be driven to, and those who attend those meetings necessarily use "roads and bridges" that "others built" with tax money--so it's a taxpayer-assisted organization and therefore it cannot discriminate. On that basis, NOTHING is exempt. Which is their goal anyhow.
If the meetings took place on
If the meetings took place on those publicly owned roads the hypothetical argument would be correct. But driving to the meeting is something else entirely. Remember that even those who are not members of the BSA can drive to the location of the meeting, they just cannot actually attend.
Ultimately a person's sexual orientation is their own business and a private organization's admission policies are their own business as well.
The only real matter of concern here is that nearly every level of government (note that I said level of government not government agency) in the United States provides support and/or rewards to the BSA and its members...and yet the BSA is allowed to discriminate based on federally protected classifications.
If the BSA were to refuse government funding, and the various levels of government (local, state, and federal) were to cease providing rewards and support to the BSA, I would wholeheartedly support their right to accept or deny whomever they choose for membership in their organization. My support would not in any way be an indication that I am opposed to agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc. but rather because I support the freedoms and rights of private American citizens.
Until that day, however, government funded and supported organizations should not be allowed to discriminate in this fashion.
Every organization, every
Every organization, every household, every entity in America receives some form of "government support" at some level. Police and fire department protection, if nothing else. So no one is entirely independent of government, therefore are we all under a "non-discriminatory" policy?
Under this kind of thinking, even a tax deduction for a home mortgage would be "government support", and therefore a parent who was a home owner couldn't teach his children to believe in God because he's doing so in his tax-supported house. Is that where we're going next?
At some point, you have to let people be who and what they are and allow freedom of association, taxes aside and all other phoney "church-state" assertions (which are entirely spurious) to go by the boards. Otherwise it never ends.
Police and fire department
Police and fire department protection are paid for services for which access is allowed without discrimination based on religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation.
For what it is worth, fire and police departments are in fact required to abide by non-discrimination policies.
A tax deduction is not government support. It is an amount of money that you do not owe to the government. Last year I did not owe 1 billion dollars to the US government, that does not mean that I received 1 billion dollars of government support.
"...fire and police
"...fire and police departments are in fact required to abide by non-discrimination policies."
Yes, they must not discriminate in their own hiring policies. Does that then mean they should not carry out their services for those who do? The BSA has been denied access to public school grounds because of their club policies, which is akin to telling them to put out their own fires and protect their own properties.
This is all 1st Amendment nonsense anyhow. The Constitution's prohibition has to do with what laws Congress cannot pass, not what "tax supported" entities cannot, or must, do.
Being denied access to school
Being denied access to school grounds because an organization is preaching standards in violation of the policies of the school is not at all analogous to being told to fight their own fires. If a BSA meeting place is on fire it will be responded to in exactly the same manner as, actually perhaps even better than, would be the case for a non BSA structure.
It is illegal for public agencies to discriminate based on protected classifications. By opting to be funded, receive material support, and receive preferential treatment from all levels of government in the United States the BSA is no longer a truly private organization.
By choosing to accept public funding, something that is not forced upon them, the BSA should be bound by federal and state laws governing discrimination based on protected classifications. This is not about Constitutional prohibitions on what laws Congress cannot pass, this is about adherence to laws that currently exist at both the state and federal levels.
State and federal governments and agencies are not allowed to deny a person access to a service based on their gender, religion, etc. The BSA is a publicly funded service.
I don't know your age, so you
I don't know your age, so you may be too young to recall that there was a time when "discrimination" statements said simply that one could not be denied accommodation on account of "race, color or creed."
Since then, we've kept "race and color" and added such things as national origin, gender [meaning "sex"], age, class [whatever that means], disability, Vietnam service status, sexual orientation, and Lord knows what else. How much change is in your pocket? What you drive? If you watch Fox or CNN?
But notice what's missing: "CREED." We used to say no one could deny you equal treatment on the basis of what you personally believed. Well, that couldn't be allowed to stand. Some people wanted to make sure everyone lined up with certain opinions. You can guess which side of the aisle that was.
I think we should return to that and accommodate either everyone equally--or NO ONE. And that, too, is a "creed."
No boy scouting organization
No boy scouting organization abroad discriminates as openly against gays or those who are not religious as does the one in the United States. The concept of duty to God is something added in the 1950's along with changing the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" because of the asinine Red Scare (anti-communist) movement that was instigated by Senator Joseph McCarthy who behaved in a manner totally inconsistent with the values of this country. The Cold War is over, and the issue of equal/civil rights is not front and center. It is time for the Boy Scouts of America to stop acting like the non-profit version of Chick-Fil-A and join the 21st Century before it, like the Republican party are totally irrelevant.
Like I said below, form a
Like I said below, form a seperate group that allows everything. And in a few years; if you are right, your organization will be overflowing with Scouts and BSA will be bankrupt and a thing of the past. Unless you are going to start-up a new organzation, stop trying to change the ones that already exist. This has happened before, it is just that LGBT movement has not started their own group for "Scouting".
As soon as the BSA actually
As soon as the BSA actually becomes a private organization, specifying it will no longer accept anything from the government, it can discriminate & regulate it's membership as it wishes. Either you are privately funded & independent or you are not. The BSA currently is NOT.
I'd be willing to bet you
I'd be willing to bet you would still complain about them if they were private. Why do I think so? Because those who are mostly behind this anti-BSA trend want to stamp out anything anti-gay wherever it pops up. They don't care about tax money; they care that everyone must agree with them.
Private organization. They
Private organization. They can do as they please. I work for a nonprofit that has values some would not agree with and they reflect that on their actions. Again, they can do as they please. If we don't like it we can move on, and leave them to their bigoted views.
J. L.
Is your Non-Profit
Is your Non-Profit organization supported bny federal, state, and local funds and/or material support? Do members of your non-profit organization receive preferential treatment from the federal government ?
If there is a need for a LGBT
If there is a need for a LGBT Scouting Organization, then it should be created. Stop trying to change an existing Organization. People do not seem to be upset that BSA does not allow girls or youth over 18 (except in Venturing and Sea Scouts; both open to co-ed 14 to 21). As far as Ryan meeting "ALL" the requirements: "Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God,' and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation."
They say that when he joined at 6 years old, he did not know his orientation. I would hope not. But, I would also bet that he did not wake-up that morning and decide he was attracted to boys. At some point he decided not to say anything and continue. Also, when did he decide that he no longer agreed with 'Duty to God'? What else does not agree with? Why did he stay with an organization that promotes values he does not hold?
If he did the work while
If he did the work while still a Scout, then he deserves the award -- even if they kick him out afterwards.
Besides, I know that scouting has always stood for morality, but do they have any evidence he ever engaged in gay sex?
I think you make a good
I think you make a good point. There's a big difference between stating one's sexual orientation & being non-sexual. If this young man is an unmarried virgin I think he is living by the values of the Boy Scouts & doing "his duty to God". The Boy Scout organizational rules makes no reference to Jesus Christ, so I don't believe they can use Christian bigotry regarding homosexuality as a defense for denying this boy the awards he has earned. Most religions, including the Jewish faith, would consider an unmarried person's chastity proof they were upholding their "duty to God".
Of the Boy Scouts are not solely funded by their members and does accept government taxpayer money, perhaps it's claim to being a private club should be examined by the justice department. Hopeful this organization will just give this young man what he has earned. That would be the honorable thing to do.
Two very valid points. Well
Two very valid points. Well said.
He might be in trouble over recanting the "duty to God" bit though, even if he has never engaged in "gay sex".
I cannot help wondering whether the way he played this was a tad provocative. Why not just collect the award, and then quietly leave the organisation with whose ethos he is no longer in sympathy? Perhaps he wanted to have a grievance, and the publicity that this has brought him. If so, he's got his way.
I doubt that this page will stay calm and reasonable for long.
Has that Southern Poverty Law Centre denounced the Scouts as a "hate group" yet? Has the leader he confided in started receiving his death threats yet? Or been nominated for Bigot of the Year Award by Stonewall? Or has the scout meeting been invaded by blokes wearing nothing but thongs?
What makes you think being
What makes you think being honest about his sexual orientation means this boy has lost his sympathy with the ethos of this organization? Being gay does not change one's character. Sexual orientation does not exclude anyone from being honest, patriotic, loyal, faithful, or religious (the Boy Scouts is not an exclusively Christian organization). Maybe that is the only point this young man is trying to make.