Words and phrases which are in all caps are taken directly from the Bill Analysis from the California State Assembly Committee on Judiciary regarding the proposed commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE CONGRATULATE THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE GRANTING OF ITS FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS ORGANIZATION STEADFASTLY CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS?
Uhh… try lack of religious views. People with religious views are not discriminated by BSA. Atheism is not a religious view. It is, in point of fact, a disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Why do we (and by “we” I mean our society, because I certainly don’t mean any of you specifically) muddle the phrasing of clearly defined terms – such as on this bill analysis written by a state organization?
Actually, this question is rhetorical. I know why.
So, then I must ask the follow-up question: why are “we” such big weenies?
I think “we” are afraid. “We” are afraid of being accused or thought of as intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded, etc. In fact, “we” are so afraid of this, we eschew logic for the sake of being excessively diplomatic.
This insanity must stop. Logic and accuracy of language are vital to our culture.
This committee is literally refusing to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts of America because we have gone so far down the road of political correctness that we can’t see things for what they really are. Instead of being an organization that develops young men into valuable young leaders of tomorrow with ethics and morals, BSA is described as an organization that “INCLUDES FOSTERING OF BIGOTED ATTITUDES TOWARDS OTHERS IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY” and “TEACHES KIDS TO HATE”.
I know a lot of Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. I have been a leader of Boy Scouts. I have never witnessed bigoted or hateful attitudes from the Boy Scouts I have been around. In fact, it would be a difficult challenge to find a group of more honorable, hard-working/achieving, and kind young men in our culture (keep in mind, I also teach 14 year-olds in high school).
“BSA’S HISTORICAL AND ONGOING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS, ATHEISTS, AGONISTS, AND GIRLS”
“ATHEISTS”
Since 1911, BSA has adhered to the Oath that they will, among other things, “do my duty to God.”
Again, atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief that any deities exist. Logic tells me that in order to swear an oath to “do my duty to God”, there needs to be a belief in deity.
“GAYS”
BSA, as per their organizational mission statement, strives to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. According to BSA, one example of immoral behavior – and they aren’t alone on this one – is homosexual lifestyles. Their policy is simple: if you live a homosexual lifestyle, you are not allowed to be a leader in BSA. It conflicts with their view of someone who is trying to “…do my best to do my duty to God…”
Logically, anyone whose lifestyle – not just homosexual lifestyles, mind you – conflicts with BSA’s view of “moral” would likewise be disallowed from leadership within the organization.
“AGONISTS” (and yes, I triple checked – it says agonist)
Could someone please tell me what an agonist is? I thought it was a classification of muscles. Maybe an agonist is someone who agonizes over things. If that’s the case, I know a lot of people who wouldn’t be allowed in Boy Scouts.
“GIRLS”
“GIRLS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATION IN BSA TROOPS”
I’ve got nothing on this one… let’s see… why would Boy Scouts prohibit girls in the organization… hmmm, no girls in Boy Scouts. Maybe I’ll get back to you when I figure this one out.
Again, logic (and not much is necessary) answers this one.
So, I need to ask the question again:
Why are “we” so hell-bent on shunning logic to the point that “we” will shirk a wonderful organization like BSA?
Because “we” are afraid. Perhaps “we” are afraid of what the real answers are. So afraid of accuracy of communication, in fact, that good people and good organizations suffer because of the ignorance that “we” show.
Well, “I” am not afraid. “I” am a boy scout. “I” am someone who stands up for what “I” believe and reject the idiocy and lunacy (and ultimately, the disservice that the craziness of “we” gives people) that has infiltrated our society.
Things are what they are. Sometimes, “we” just have to accept reality. “I” believe it is important to be trustworthy with ourselves and each other. And to be loyal. And kind-hearted… and brave enough to do the right thing, even though “we” will hate us for it.
In fact, I think I know why they don’t like the BSA – it’s not because scouts hate or are intolerant. It’s because the Boy Scouts of America are full of “I”s: kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well said Danny.
If I am correct,
Agonists: are people who believe in agonism. A political therory that emphasises the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of political conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict, but seeks to show how we might accept and channel this positively.
So if the BSA is intollerant of Agonists then the BSA does not tollerate anyone who makes "waves" or causes the status quo to be disturbed. By calling them agonists then the individual making this statement is placing the motives of the agonist in a possitive light only having the best of intentions.
A dubya
Dude, it's 7/5, the show has been over for two months, let it go, get out your pen and get back to work.
UB :-)
Post a Comment