Scouts Sent to Back of the Bus

Everyone is familiar with the Left’s war on the Boy Scouts.  It’s a wildly successful organization that encourages self-reliance and responsibility in teenage boys (a rather formidable task), so, naturally, it must be squelched.  Sometimes they go after the Scouts because of the God thing. Other times they go after them because of the gay thing. A recent editorial in the Daily Tar Heel goes after the Scouts for the gay thing, but there’s an interesting twist.

Apparently, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro YMCA is planning to merge with the Triangle YMCA in Raleigh.  The Chapel Hill Y has adopted some sort of non-discrimination employment policy that includes sexual orientation, while the Triangle Y has not.  The editorial then goes on to make a very bad argument, wholly dependent on assuming that Scout leaders are employees of the chartering organization (hint: they’re not), and declares that since the Scouts are so fixated on being “morally straight” (no pun intended), they should be given the boot. This, I think, points to the larger issue: how the supposedly tolerant gay rights’ crusaders are completely intolerant of intolerance.

Consider the opening line of the editorial, “inclusivity is the name of the game in any successful merger” and compare it to the very next sentence, “The YMCA of the Triangle must reconcile its backwards policies with the more progressive ones already in place at the Chapel Hill-Carrboro branch.”  So, what they’re really saying is that the Chapel Hill Y doesn’t have to be inclusive at all, it’s those redneck, barbarian rubes in Raleigh who’ve got to learn to accept people with different thoughts and ideas.  What of inclusivity?  What of diversity?  The editorial claims, “The progressive policies in place are no accident; they reflect values that are central to the identities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.” Can the same not be said about the Triangle Y’s policies?  Perhaps these supposed “backwards” policies are central to the identity of Raleigh and the surrounding area.  Is Raleigh’s identity any less valid because it does not conform to the “progressive” policies of Chapel Hill?  If one is to argue that one branch must sacrifice its value system on the altar of inclusivity, consider the situation objectively.  Which branch is throwing out a youth group because the people in it are “different”, the Neanderthals in Raleigh or the Enlightened Elites in Chapel Hill?

The editorial also claims that if Scout troops were permitted to use the Y’s facilities, it would somehow be “infringing on the gay community’s rights.”  But how exactly?  It’s not as if gay people would suddenly be denied access to the facility or be forced to pay more for access to it.  I can’t actually think of any way in which a scout troop meeting in the basement of the Y could possibly “harm” a gay person.  I suppose that some gay people might find the troop offensive, but that hardly translates into harm.  Last I checked, there was no right to be free from offense.  That’s just life.

The editorial also contains one final little gem.  It says,

“If the merger is approved with the integration of Chapel Hill-Carrboro’s sexual orientation clause, the YMCA owes it to the troops to help them relocate to another facility.  This isn’t asking much, but it could go a long way toward healing any potential wounds.”

I’m sure they told Rosa Parks the same thing. After all, what’s the big deal, right?  Asking people to simply find another seat or to find another meeting place simply because of who they are isn’t asking too much.  The big deal with Rosa Parks wasn’t that the bus driver asked her to find another seat, it was that he didn’t get up and help her find another one.

Asking the Boy Scouts to find an alternative meeting place because of their refusal to compromise their principles is ridiculously hypocritical.  The gay crusaders constantly implore us to “love not hate“, but where is the love for those who disagree with them?  The short answer is that there is none. Dissenters are kicked to the curb and treated like second class citizens, all while the gay rights activists proclaim their boundless tolerance and love for everyone.  This is hypocritical and disgusting.

Marc Seelinger :: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill :: Chapel Hill, North Carolina :: @marcseelinger



  1. Hmmm,,,,Really? says:

    Interesting that one would moralize for an organization that for years was a hide out for pedophile troop leaders. Hey, I have a great idea, why not eliminate anyone from the Boy Scouts that claims or espouses ANY type of sexuality.

    I mean, really, if one engages in masturbation, adultery, or fornication, according to the Scouts, are they not morally crooked also, straight or gay? Or are y’all just interested in being thought police?

  2. Imagine the thought of the gays and liberal whackos getting up off their dead (asses) and creating their OWN VERSION of the Boy / Girl / Scouts? Hell, just call em the Transvestite Troopers and leave the Boy / Girl scouts alone!

  3. Hmmm,,,,Really? says:

    @Gregory-Is it always “us vs. them” for you angry conservatives with your simple cliche’ answers to the issues of the day. Are you all really that afraid for your own sexuality? Is your sexuality really that fragile? It is just staggering to me that sexuality takes up so much of your bandwidth.

  4. The ideas and values of the Boy Scouts of America incorporates the acceptance and understanding of ALL values and opinions. The phrase “mentally awake” is also in the motto. The Boy Scouts have taken and trained many leaders to eliminate a hideout for adults that are unsuitable to be around children. Asking the Boy Scouts to move because someone is afraid to be “offended” is ridiculous. The self-reliance, independence and civic obligations of Boy Scouts cannot be found in any other organization in this country.

  5. Matt Price says:

    While it is unfortunate that the progressives who have for years decried that “Sexual Orientation” is a protected right of everyone – why isn’t Heterosexualism a protected right?

    I am sure that while the “Y” will have all of the little protected groups in their outfit – my question to them is “Y” can you not have everyone under your umbrella? “Y” can’t your inclusion policies include everyone?

    The inclusiveness of all groups, irregardless of their membership policies is indeed CENTRAL to the word inclusiveness and diversity. The objectiveness of the very words have been twisted by the progressive nutcases to mean “Discrimination by design.” Rather than working to come to a common view, the folks driving this lunacy factor seem to not care about the collateral damage that this kind of thinking causes.

    Scouts, who were maintaining a City dock for free in San Diego were booted, now the City (the Citizens) have to pitch in a million and a half dollars a year for upkeep. Because one’s values are placed over the others, rather than respecting them and moving on.

    Conservation projects that were commonplace for the Scouts to take care of for free, now take millions of tax dollars to remedy, and in many cases, causes additional environmental damages. Because one’s values are placed over the others, rather than respecting them and moving on.

    Rather than accept the membership policies of the Scouts, the constant attacks from those who either don’t have a clue or could not measure up continue. Afterall, if it were truely about the sexual orientation and religious beliefs of the individual, we would have seen long ago programs for homosexual youth and agnostics/athiest youth.

    But we don’t see them at all. Why? The success of any program follows the values that create it – and not waver from them. There is healthy debate amongst those in the Scouting program over delivery of the program.

    Now – since I have said all of that – there was one comment above that needs to be addressed. In the 20’s-today you have people on this earth that believe that “Sexual Preference” and “Sexual Orientation” is included to prefer children. It does not matter where you go – there is an equal number of atheists, homosexuals, and pedophiles who believe that their sexual orientation is “Inclusive.”

    If you take the sex out of the program – then it is just that – a five star program.

    Kids who are 11 years old and up need not be introduced to such topics by people who do not have the authority of their parents to do so. The school system should not do it – and neither should anyone in the Scouting program. The parents, NOT those who are part of the program – have the sole responsibility to teach those subjects to their children.

    Now that being said – It is the responsibility of the adult volunteers to be aware of child psychological and physical development, those topics that you have mentioned, and to appropriately and objectively explain the appropriateness of the actions to them, and to take appropriate disciplinary actions if required. If it means expulsion, so it does.

    Not everyone fits into the “Special Interest Groups” and not everyone fits into Scouting. It is what it is – accept it and your on your way to being a better person.

    So, now my question to the “Y” is: “Y: are the policies of the “Y” discriminatory?

  6. Matt Price says:

    “@Gregory-Is it always “us vs. them” for you angry conservatives with your simple cliche’ answers to the issues of the day. Are you all really that afraid for your own sexuality?”

    We are not angry nor afraid of anyone’s sexuality. Theirs is theirs, mine is mine, yours is yours. It’s called not dwelling on the subject matter and getting on with life.

    However, one point I want to make – when someone hides behind a screen name and flames someone – probably because they are afraid to let their true identity be known – commonly is referred to as a coward.

  7. “The self-reliance, independence and civic obligations of Boy Scouts cannot be found in any other organization in this country.” Except the United States Marine Corps.

  8. Great article, Marc. You hit the nail on the head. I was a Star Scout, and enjoyed my time in Scouting, although the beginning was a little rough, as I had to put up with “belt lines” and private “beatings.” I don’t really remember the details that well, but it didn’t hurt me. I excelled after I got past Tenderfoot and never once had any experience that was anything to be ashamed of, such as having to deal with a homosexual in a leadership position. I feel so sorry for today’s youth. Why can’t unusual people keep their private sex lives to themselves? The problem lies in our lack of morality everywhere. Our society (on the whole) now lives like the one did at the end of Judges: they all did what was right in their own eyes.
    BTW, I think those two YMCAs are stupid for trying to merge in the first place. They should stay apart. Problem solved.
    The YMCA should be more like the Boy Scouts. They would do well to follow the Motto, the Oath and the Law. They worked very well to make me a respectable person. If boys followed these rules all their lives much troubles would be avoided.

    Scout Motto
    Be Prepared.

    Scout Oath
    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.

    Scout Law
    A Scout is
    Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
    Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
    Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
    Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

  9. Maria Shield says:

    So no one sees the irony of what the C in YMCA stands for and what Christian values are being mocked by Chapel Hill?

  10. Those of us that follow the rule of law and the rule of God’s laws have no problems with our sexuality. However, in reading through the Bible, I have seen where some liberal progressives got their asses handed to them all over thye place because they wanted to buck the system that was put in place for man to follow.

    I have no problems with my sexuality as it is firmly seated right where God put it! HETROSEXUAL. Why? You having troubles defining who you are? Woried that God may firebomb your ass or drop a building on you for what you are doing?

    …and what kind of babbling progressive bullshit is THAT about hiding? I hide behind nothing.

  11. Matt Price says:

    Greg – look again – I was quoting the secretive progressive socialist.

  12. The true irony lies between, WE, The People, for allowing two organizations that are based on Judeo-Christian values and moral standards to be over-run by the gay-wads, liberals and progressives. OOPS! I used my 1st Amendment RIGHTS to say that!

  13. Good point! i stand corrected.

  14. Haha! That was a good one! I never thought I’d get caught by Poe’s Law, but you got me. I thought that anyone who could use “intolerant of intolerance” would know that the phrase is self-deprecating. But maybe, just maybe someone could non-ironically use it. Then I saw the bit about religious bigots being compared to Rosa Parks and I simply lost it! You gave yourself away with that one, Marc. :D Better luck next time.

What Do You Think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: