Boy Scouts & standards
Boy Scouts & standards
My 2010 letter to then-Boy Scouts of America CEO Bob Mazzuca concerning the Scouts' policy toward homosexuality was quoted in your Jan. 29 story “Boy Scouts rethinking ban on gays.” The story expressed my belief that the policy violated the ideals of the Scouting movement. But my rationale for the statement wasn't in the article.
I'd like to clarify. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
“When we seek to define a moral standard for our members, we need to be true to Scouting's inclusive religious principles. It's hypocritical for us to insist that our boys be respectful of all religions when we impose conservative Christian morality on people of all faiths when evaluating the moral fitness of Scouters. It seems arrogant to the point of ridiculous to tell a gay Lutheran pastor or Episcopal bishop that a gay parishioner is unfit to serve her congregation's Scout troop as Scoutmaster.
“There are many earnest people of faith who believe that homosexuality is part of God's plan; that what really matters to God is how we treat the people we love, not who they are. Perhaps it's more appropriate to allow each chartered organization the latitude to divine for itself which way its moral compass points. The BSA should defend a Reformed Jewish synagogue's right to include gay leaders with the same zeal with which it defends a Roman Catholic parish's right to exclude them.”
The writer is the scoutmaster for Birdville Troop 186 in Harrison.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- It’s not personal
- Getting bad advice
- Amendment levels playing field
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- HUD & Larimer
- Low blow
- Diplomatic difference