As a former Boy Scout, I am disturbed by the Boy Scouts of America's consideration of relaxing a part of it's standards to allow a controversial choice to be allowed into an organization that was designed to build boys into better sons, husbands and fathers.
I try to respect people despite their life choices, I really do. However, respect only goes so far. If a decision to relax standards within the Boy Scouts does come to pass, I cannot in good conscience support that decision.
It seems that in all of the shouting and screaming about what people try to bring about as equal and fair, the final part of the Scout Oath is forgotten. That part is, "To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
It is a sad thing when the heads of this organization that has been a staple in this nation for around a century is wanting to relax the morals that has made generations of people better.
Eric Green
Bountiful
- In our opinion: Frances B. Monson's...
- Dan Liljenquist: Chaffetz's search for truth...
- Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in America's...
- Letter: The real death panel: Republican...
- Letters: Deception and government
- Michael Gerson: As government's ambitions...
- What others say: Assault on core values
- My view: Climate argument is shortsighted
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
Whose moral standards should they apply, yours? And it also leads to the same argument that scouting used to resist change: you aren't forced to join this private organization.
Mike Richards:
While I agree that the BSA should be able to set its own standards for its leaders, and that homosexual sex is wrong, isn't it a little over the top to label all homosexuals as predators? That smacks of paranoia and More..
Mike:
You are consistent if nothing else. So it follows that vetting a prospective Boy Scout leader would require an inquiry into whether he has ever had sex outside of marriage, right? That would, of course, eliminate a lot of men from More..