Government can't dictate beliefs
To the editor,
In response to Cory Spiller's irate article in which he thoroughly bashed Boy Scouts of America, I say this: Why is it that if an organization holds a personal, moral viewpoint, they are fascist and close-minded, and yet you not accepting that opinion as their right is somehow progressive and open-minded? What arrogance and pride! The feeling behind it is one commonly expressed, "I'm okay, you're okay," yet Spiller's approach shows that the Boy Scouts would only be okay if they accepted his view that homosexuality is a moral worth teaching young boys. What the author was truly criticizing was a group that has chosen their beliefs and is steadfastly standing behind them. In a culture where you dare not take a stand because it will surely be politically incorrect by tomorrow, the Boy Scouts should be applauded, whether or not you agree with the decision they have made. Forcing a group like the Boy Scouts to accept a view contrary to their own would fall under fascism. Giving them the freedom to chose their moral stand is true liberty. If you want the government to tell private groups what they must believe, I suggest you move to Cuba, Mr. Spiller.
Kati Holgate
Freshman nursing major
Tolerance necessary
To the editor,
The Boy Scouts of America is not the enemy.
Recent attacks on scouting and its position not to allow homosexuals to serve as adult leaders, including this paper's caustic editorial on Sept. 27, have attempted to project an image of intolerance on the organization. However, such attacks are misled and only feed a false sense of tolerance. Is it contradictory for a group or individual to maintain a belief that an action is morally wrong and yet remain tolerant? Not at all!
Tolerance represents a respect for others, regardless of their customs, races, religions or personal abilities. Tolerance leads me to despise acts of hatred and words of abuse, even when directed at those I disagree with most. Tolerance does not require that I forsake my views of a true God, of a true sense of morality, of right and wrong.
However, I must respect the rights of others to believe that I am mistaken. As a parent, I will teach my children my understanding of God, the moral guidelines that accompany my beliefs, and the tools at their disposal to distinguish right from wrong.
The enemy is intolerance.
The Boy Scouts of America is designed to reinforce the family in its challenge to teach boys and young men to "do [their] duty to God and [their] country" and "to help other people at all times." Volunteer adult leaders serve as role models in performing these duties. Many parents as well as sponsoring organizations of scouting believe that homosexuality is fundamentally immoral, regardless of the ability of homosexuals as individuals to contribute to society. This is not discrimination, but is maintaining the integrity of the institution according to its primary purpose.
Parents choose to have their sons participate in Boy Scouting as a method to teach their children according to their values and conscience. Families who disagree with the standards established by the Boy Scouts are free not to participate. The funding which the Tucson City Council voted Monday to withdraw from scouting was not used to sponsor troops, but was actually used in outreach programs such as providing for individual, financially-strapped families the right to allow their children to participate in the scouting program. With this vote, the council rejects the right of these parents to determine the character education to provide for their sons (and indirectly through precedent, for their daughters as well).
Scouting reinforces that one can be true to one's beliefs while remaining tolerant. The university community would be well served if editorials actually represented intelligent debate. Editorial attempts to equate scouting with intolerance are flawed.
They are not the same.
David Brian Walton
Eagle Scout
Graduate student in applied mathematics
Scouts should accept consequences
To the editor,
In response to all the debate flying around the Boy Scouts: debate can be divided into three distinct and separate issues. First is whether or not the scouts have the right to exclude gay scout leaders. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court: As a private (stress on private) organization, they can limit the admission of members. Period.
The other issue at hand is in response to the scouts decision to ban said leaders, can government agencies pull funding for the organization? Absolutely. From a legal standpoint, the Council is well within its jurisdiction.
Finally, the third issue is the subjective one of who is right. The Boy Scouts is an organization that promotes good qualities in young boys. That is not in dispute. While calling the BSA a Fascist paramilitary organization may be a little extreme, criticism and sanction of discriminatory practices by the organization are completely valid and justified.
Why? The stress above, on private. If the Boy Scouts want to act as a private organization and ban certain people from membership, then they should be willing to accept the consequence of not being publicly funded. They argued the point all the way to the Supreme Court, and kudos to the Council members who are just as willing to uphold the standards of their community and to disallow any form of discrimination against any group. As a life long resident of the city of Tucson, I feel that the Council has done a wonderful job in representing me and my views. I do not want one dime of my tax dollars to go to an organization that discriminates based on sexual orientation or any other category.
Jonna Lopez
Political science junior.
Boy Scouts not all good
To the editor,
I am writing in response to the many letters about the Boy Scouts of America. So, it does not feel too good to be discriminated against, huh?
How do you think homosexuals and everyone else that's been excluded from your club feel? The BSA has a "blatant disregard for the beliefs of others" as well, or else we would not be having this discussion.
I would not go as far as Cory Spiller went, I know the BSA does have some good attributes, but it is also similar to the Ku Klux Klan. Unfortunately, the KKK does have the right to discriminate, but in return for that, they do not get national or state funding and they are constantly protested. The same should apply to the BSA, even though they are not nearly as extreme, they are sending the same message that it is OK to exclude someone because of their beliefs.
I am sure that most of the people that wrote these letters are/were in the BSA and are very religious. This would also lead me to believe that you are against such artists, like Eminem and his lyrics. He has been accused of "gay-bashing" just like the BSA. Now, who do you think actually stepped into "the fire?"
Jennifer Lewis
Astronomy and physics sophomore
