Hi Eve,
I hate to take issue with you, because we editors should stick together, but I had to respond to this.
I’m Libertarian–conservative on some issues, liberal on others. I feel there’s a problem in casting an organization that doesn’t line up exactly with one’s philosophy as “right-wing” (or, conversely, “left-wing”) when that may not necessarily be the case. For example, one person could look at my stance on abortion and say I’m right wing; another could look at my stance on marijuana use and say I’m left wing. Both would be wrong.
When you cast a middle-of-the-road organization like the Boy Scouts as right wing, what then of G. Gordon Liddy? The John Birch Society? The term begins to lose meaning, in addition to alienating a lot of very moderate people who may agree with you on many issues while still supporting the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own rules.
I don’t have children, so the issue doesn’t really apply to me, but for better or worse a LOT of parents would agree with this. Parents who desire to protect their kids are not always rational. A lot of parents would not want their young sons to be camping unsupervised with a gay man. A lot of parents would not like their young daughters camping unsupervised with a straight man (and my understanding, which could be wrong, is that the ban is against gay scout leaders, not against gay scouts). True, these people’s perceptions may not line up with reality, but for a lot of people perceptions are reality.
The Boy Scouts have ALWAYS been out there saying they believe in God and want their members to be morally straight; this isn’t a stance they just dreamed up last week. I think they as a private organization have a right to feel that way, regardless of how I feel about that. As soon as government has the right to sanction private organizations based on beliefs they may disagree with, how long until they sanction the Catholic Church for their abortion stance, the Amish for their separatism from the government, etc.? It’s a slippery slope.
As for participation in schools, I think what NYC is doing is sad. A lot of boys will be denied an educational experience the schools cannot replicate. On the other hand, I would totally support any scouting organization that wanted to do away with the religious or heterosexual requirements. What’s next? When they do field trips to the art museums in the city, should they force the students not to look at the religious art, for fear of offense?
I don’t believe in coercion; for example, I don’t believe in forced prayer in schools. However, no one is forcing a boy into the Scouts or forcing students who disagree with the Scouts to support them. It seems to me that tolerance and diversity applies also to those who would support the scouts–they have a right to their opinions and their positions and those should not be squelched by the government or government institutions. That’s what the First Amendment is built on.
I hope this doesn’t open a can of worms. I enjoy so many of your posts, Eve, and I understand this issue is really important to you. I just can’t see, in the vast continuum of say, Rage Against the Machine on the left and G. Gordon Liddy on the right, how the Boy Scouts can fairly be painted as a right-wing religious organization (not to mention the fabulous job they do maintaining many of the bst hiking trails in Missouri).