Can Boy Scouts Ban … Alcoholics?
Here’s a report about the controversy a private club has found itself embroiled in.
The Boy Scouts of America will get no reprieve from controversy after a contentious vote to accept alcoholic boys as Scouts.
Dismayed conservatives are already looking at alternative youth groups as they predict a mass exodus from the BSA. Alcoholics-rights supporters vowed Friday to maintain pressure on the Scouts to end the still-in-place ban on alcoholic adults serving as leaders.
"They’re not on our good list yet," said Paul Guequierre of the Human Rights Campaign, a national alcoholic -rights group. He said the HRC, in its annual rankings of corporate policies on workplace fairness, would deduct points from companies that donate to the Boy Scouts until the ban on alcoholic adults is lifted.
Now, you may be wondering why you didn’t hear about this particular scandal, and the reason is it hasn’t happened. I just took a news article and replaced every mention of the word “gay” with the word “alcoholic”. All of a sudden, it sounds absolutely nuts, doesn’t it? Should the Scouts be allowed to discriminate against alcoholics? Set aside for the moment that the drinking age is such that it would exclude boys in the Scouts age range, would the Scouts come under fire for not allowing boys who are what you might call “practicing alcoholics” into its ranks? Would any human rights group fault them for having a ban on alcoholic adults as Scout leaders?
The plain fact is, no, they wouldn’t. The official policy of the Boy Scouts of America is that alcohol is not permitted “at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members.” Certainly a troop leader showing up drunk wouldn’t be tolerated. They’ve made that rule, and no one (that I know of) is coming down on them for it.
And yet the Human Rights Campaign and others have been pressuring the Scouts to set aside their ban on homosexual boys in Scouting. Why? Well, because they’re born that way, as our culture keeps reminding us, so to discriminate against them is unfair and bigoted, right? And yet, there is research that shows conclusively that alcoholism is, in part, genetic as well. In fact, there is more evidence of that than there is evidence of homosexuality having a genetic component. It’s being studied, but right now, nothing is at all conclusive, unlike the way the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism describe the genetic link.
If they’re born that way, and if being born that way means no one can discriminate against that trait for any reason, well, is that a Pandora’s box you really want to open?
At its core, the ban on gay Scouts was partly a moral stance, with the Scout Oath including a phrase about being morally straight. It was also partly an issue of general sexuality. Would you want your boy sharing tent with a girl? Or, more generally, with someone who may be sexually attracted to him? Consider this.
And while the Scouts have lifted the ban on gay Scouts, they’ve kept it for Scout leaders. The HRC doesn’t like that, either. Let’s think about this. Those priests that got accused of molesting boys can now trade out their collar for a khaki shirt and become a Scoutmaster. What would the HRC think about that?
Filed under: Culture • Doug • Homosexuality
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Why wouldn’t Scouts take an 8-year-old alcoholic in? Seems like a kid like that could benefit from Scouting.
Are you a Scout? Do you understand the current membership flap?
Is there any good reason on Earth — real reason — ban gay kids?
Oh, I get it — you don’t understand the difference between alcohol abuse by a person, and the disease called alcoholism.
Scouts don’t ban alcoholics. We ban alcohol abuse on Scout functions. That ban stands for alcoholics and non-alcoholics alike.
Alcoholics can be members. No one can abuse alcohol, and in most cases no one can use alcohol, at Scout functions.
Both my sons have been in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, so I am aware of what’s going on.
I answered your question about a real reason to ban them in the post.
I know what the current Scout rules on alcohol at Scout functions are. I linked to them in the post.
You did read the post, right?
My main point is that if the impetus to not ban gays is because, as society now believes, they were born that way and we shouldn’t ban them for something that has a genetic component, then should alcoholics that are that way due to a genetic component be allowed, just the way they are? More generally, should society in general not try to change them, since they were born that way?
Further, do we really want to bring in the sexual attraction issue to the Scouts, as I mentioned in the second-to-last paragraph? And the issue with gay Scout leaders is even more of a concern. Just ask the Catholic church.
Alcoholics are allowed, just the way they are.
But no drinking on campouts.
No sex on campouts, either.
Why are you hung up about sex? Sounds like you could use more training, and especially more time camping.
By the way, for the first 81 years of Boy Scouts in America, there was no ban on homosexuals in any position.
Scouts and Scouters refer to those days as the “good old days.” Gerry Ford was a Boy Scout then, and earned his Eagle rank. Stephen Spielberg won his Eagle then. Neil Armstrong and Bill Bradley Eagled. Hank Aaron was a Scout then.
What do you have against a program that works like that?
P.S. — take a look at Distinguished Eagle Rex Tillerson’s explanation of the new policy:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/exxon-mobils-rex-tillerson-urges-scouts-to-get-on-with-the-main-thing-scouting-after-historic-membership-policy-vote/
Why are you hung up about sex? Sounds like you could use more training, and especially more time camping.
The 2-Deep policy, requiring at least 2 adults with any group of boys (even just 1 boy), is partially to prevent sexual molestation. The policy that I can’t sleep in a tent with any boy other than my own son is for the same reason. Asking why I might be hung up on sex is really disingenuous. There is already a concern about this in Scouting.
When I was a Scout in the early 70s, this policy was not in place (as far as I know). But with the continuing acceptance of homosexuality and with a better understanding of sexual predators, the 2-Deep policy had to be made. That’s why for so long there wasn’t a ban on homosexuals. Society changed, and the Scouts had to take that into consideration.
Again, just like the Catholic Church. I’m sure there were and are rules about it, but rules aren’t always followed, and now there are boys who were scarred by a few priests. This speaks more the to the issue of gay Scouts leaders, but I think the concern is still real. Again, the issue of my son sleeping in a tent with someone sexually attracted to him is a concern.
I do think that, as most Scout troops are sponsored by churches, that the thoughts on what are “morally straight” may make an impression on gay scouts. Perhaps not officially, but being in the company of many who believe their religion’s proscription against it can be a very good influence. Given that, my disagreement with the policy change is tempered by this.