Traditions founded on Biblical word, not subject to change in social norms
Wednesday’s article regarding the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) being discriminatory was more than slightly off kilter. The opinion piece touched on the BSA policy of “banning” homosexual scout leaders. The author, however, has entirely missed some major tenets of the organization and has instead simply issued an autocratic edict for the BSA to change its traditions.
The author calls the ban “outdated,” says “every individual” should be able to be a part of the Scouts and alleges that it is “unfair” to deny any boy that opportunity. This suggests two things: 1) that moral values change with the times and 2) that a private organization should not be permitted to choose its members however it pleases. She also says that the BSA should be a support group for boys struggling with “breaking the social norms set by our society.” The contradictory inference here is that while policies banning homosexual leaders are outdated (socially), social “norms” continue to stigmatize those boys with nontraditional tendencies.
To claim that morality can be outdated is a loaded, subjective statement. If so, what other beliefs will society soon conclude are “old-fashioned” or unnecessary? Who determines what is outdated? Further, can the “every individual” argument be applied to all organizations? Should illegal immigrants be allowed to join the Daughters of the American Revolution or Sons of Confederate Veterans?
Relating to morality and the whims of time, the author asserts that the Southern Baptists are hypocrites to “believe that homosexuality is a sin, but forget that discrimination is also a sin.” This statement is laughable. Southern Baptists believe that extramarital relations of any sort are sin based upon biblical passages. The Bible never once says discrimination is a sin. As a matter of fact, the Bible describes many instances of righteous discrimination. For example, the Gospel of Matthew declares that at the end of time, God will assemble “all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” The good and the bad are separated, and the bad are cast away. The author’s claim that discrimination as a sin is personal, subjective and open for discussion. In comparison, Southern Baptist theology is, for those who uphold Christian beliefs, objective, based on Holy Writ and not open for argument. It is illogical to accuse a group of hypocrisy for only following what they believe. That is better defined as virtue.
In conclusion, the arguments of Wednesday’s author miss the point. Boy Scout values are based on a few set beliefs: There is a God, Scouts should be morally reverent and there are such defined ideals as duty. To modify the Scouts’ values to follow the whims of time would completely nullify the purpose of their tenets.