Conspirator Isn’t The 13th Law
Irradiated by LabRat
Oh Chuck Norris No.
Synopsis: Chuck Norris has managed to notice that James Turley, on the board of the Boy Scouts of America, has announced he will “work from within” to try and change the BSA’s no-gays policy. Chuck Norris has also managed to notice that the Obama administration has been moderately friendlier to gay people than those previous. He wants us to ask ourselves, at great and exhaustive length, if it is a coincidence that James Turley and the Obama administration both don’t hate homos. There are seventeen “is it a coincidences” in there in all, relating to the strange conspiracy that is their mutual lack of anti-gay sentiment and the fact that Turley is, apparently, a rich Democrat.
No, it’s not a coincidence, Chuck, it’s called having similar politics and it doesn’t require a motherfucking White House conspiracy, gifts, bribes, or favors. Contrary to whatever bubble of Barrens Chat you may currently dwell in, being against no-gays-allowed policies is a pretty common political stance now, among many people to the left of Rick Perry and even a few scattered folks on the right. If anything gay-rights advocates feel Obama has been REALLY squishy on that issue when he didn’t really need to be for his own political survival; the Obama white house isn’t exactly in the pocket of that particular lobby, and has plodded along just in the wake of the leading edge of public opinion like any well-trained weathervane. And the Boy Scouts, while they may ban atheists, agnostics, and gay folk, do not ban liberals or moderates.
My own general position is that the BSA should stop fucking around and choose whether it wants to stand on its principles as a private organization to ban whomever they choose (and maybe at the same time stop accepting multimillions of taxpayer dollars’ worth in federal and local public funding and favors- on principle), or act like the public organization they often function as and open their admissions to all boys in America. I’d like it a lot if that latter happened; my husband was a Scout and so was my brother, who made Eagle, and I genuinely believe they’re an overall force for good for boys in this country. But it’s not my organization, and I’m not on the board. Turley is.
And if you believe his position as such is so radical it requires back-scratching and favors under the table from the White House to explain, you truly have lost touch with America.
June 26th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Is there some reason when I went to the link that the chuck noris site kept continuously opening windows on my screen? Besides of course the sheer overpowering force of his testosterone driven brain vacuumer?
Nice post.
My husband was also a scout. When it became clear that his congenital heart condition would make it impossible to earn some of the merit badges he would need to make Eagle they told him that was just too damned bad. I’d like to see the BSA open up more too.
June 26th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
My problem with allowing/tolerating homosexuality in the Scout Movement (whether pertaining to Scouts or Scoutmasters) is the link between pedophilia and homosexuality. I’ve discussed this before on my blog, but briefly, there really is evidence to suggest that whilst most homosexuals are not pedophiles or ephebophiles, many pedophiles and ephebophiles are homosexual. That correlation worries the heck out of me in the context of a male youth movement. I’d like to see any risk to the youngsters in the Scout Movement minimized; therefore, I think their current policies are understandable.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree, Labrat, that if the Scouts want to retain their present policies, they should not accept taxpayer-subsidized funds or use taxpayer-funded facilities for their operations (unless they pay the full costs of the latter use). As a privately-funded organization they will, of course, be free to do as they please. One would hope that those who agree with their stance will dig into their pockets to provide what they need.
June 26th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I rofled.
June 26th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Peter: and yet? The majority of children who are sexually abused in the country, not just in the Catholic church, aren’t boys at all. They’re girls, being molested by “straight” men, usually authority figures, often family members or friends/lovers of family members. That argument means organizations should not allow men in general into positions of authority/leadership or caretaking of girls- a particularly jaundiced viewpoint that unfortunately a few already have.
I have to admit that particular argument galls me a lot, because it seems to imply that the molestation of boys somehow matters a lot more than the molestation of girls does, or that straight men being predatory to young girls is somehow natural and something we should concern ourselves with less, or at least not enough to treat homosexual men and straight men as the pretty much equal risk of also being ephebophiles or pedophiles that they are.
I will readily concede that the church in particular- and other institutions- harbored and probably does still harbor networks of predators who favor boys. Pedophiles are quite, quite good at networking, whichever flavor of child they’re after. I generally think the solution to this isn’t to exclude openly gay men from anywhere in the vicinity of boys and straight men from anywhere in the vicinity of girls, but retain the attitude that anyone could be a predator, and focus on the acts of grooming and predatory behavior, and not on orientation- in either direction.
After all, the solution for a homosexual pedophile who already must keep one side of his sexuality a total secret? Just stay closeted.
June 26th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Peter: Homosexual pedophile rapists are not about to admit their gender preferences in public.
So discriminating against uncloseted homosexuals is completely unwarranted.
If the BSA simply banned pedophiles, and banned any discussion of sex by scoutmasters, I think that the Christian sensibilities of those concerned would be addressed.
Right now, municipalities are looking for alternative sources of police academy recruits because of this policy. If they don’t knock this crap off, they will be replaced by some kind of Obama-youth program.
June 26th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
I have to agree with Peter, as an Eagle Scout back in the day, I would NOT want pedofile or homosexual leaders handling Cub and Boy Scouts.
June 27th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Some good points here. I never made Eagle. I made Life, though, and Scouting was important to me.
I question the direct influx of “multimillions of taxpayer dollars’ worth in federal and local public funding and favors” to the Scouts. When I went to Philmont (near Cimarron, NM), we had to pay hundreds per Scout, by way of troop fundraisers. We met at a Knights Of Columbus hall. We camped on public and private land alike, and had to pay for it. (Occasionally by doing work on the sites.) I don’t recall getting a free lunch. Philmont Scout Ranch, like all of the others, was bought and donated from private estates.
I understand that the Explorer posts work closely with PDs and such, but does that constitute special moneys and such?
Frankly, I had always thought that the issue was settled: the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization and thus may ban whomever they choose, and damn the costs politically.
I make no bones about standing up for gay rights, and I will read with critical interest and skepticism the evidence that Peter has to back the contention that gays are more likely to be pedo/ephebophiles (but I will read it, and if you come in with a preconception, it ain’t science), but I’ll stick up for a private organization’s right to ban what they like.
As to the ability of a gay man to lead a boy in the manly pursuits without affecting the boy’s sexual interest- I have trouble imagining my old scoutmasters’ sexuality. Yes, they were married. But sex was not a topic of Scout meetings. They taught me many things, but not how to be a heterosexual man.
I disagree with Chuck Norris on this, and probably other things, too.
June 27th, 2012 at 6:17 am
“I’ve discussed this before on my blog, but briefly, there really is evidence to suggest that whilst most homosexuals are not pedophiles or ephebophiles, many pedophiles and ephebophiles are homosexual.”
I wonder which is a larger percentage of convicted pedophiles: Homosexuals, Caucasians, or Catholics?
And yet only one of those is barred from Scouting…
June 27th, 2012 at 6:36 am
Matt G: I’m afraid I can’t cite an explicit example, but I have heard of the Scouts getting really sweetheart lease deals from some places, to the tune of 99 year leases for $1 per year. Now, maybe those deals are “old” and therefore pre-inflation, or that’s the going rate for that type of land, and it’s impossible for me to say with any certainty without more details, but that sounds like the sort of thing that might be being referred to.
Peter: I feel your linked article has some logical problems, but I suspect my response could go long, so I’ll respond there.
June 27th, 2012 at 7:00 am
Note: the Scouts don’t exclude gay scouts,they exclude gay scoutmasters.
June 27th, 2012 at 8:00 am
You know, the Girl Scouts has allowed lesbian, bi, and trans leaders (and scouts, of course) for years and the world hasn’t ended yet. I wonder why Mr. Norris isn’t protesting the Girl Scouts… except probably that “there are lesbian leaders, and they are exactly as good at it as the straight leaders!” wouldn’t be particularly horrifying.
June 27th, 2012 at 8:28 am
It’s also possible that Mr. Norris would view lesbian girl scouts as the kind of thing he’d want to see on a DVD from an anonymous porn company.
June 27th, 2012 at 9:27 am
@Peter, @LabRat.
I seem to remember that the BSA had a newsworthy problem with pedophile Scout leaders. That may be the reason for current policies.
Per Kermitt, it appears that they don’t try to filter out pre-teens who don’t know whether or not they find other males sexually attractive. But they do appear to filter out Scoutmasters.
However, I welcome input from people connected with Scouting. Where’s Jay G. when you need him?
June 27th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Matt G: That close relationship between the Explorer Scout program and many large city PDs and state academies is ending because of this.
I know Portland OR is even pimping a locally created politically correct youth program as an alternate recruiting source ( it’s failing now, but it hangs on because of city funding ).
If they can’t get their heads in into the 21st Century, being a Scout will soon get someone excluded from recruiting efforts.
June 27th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Matt: it varies a ton by locality and pack from completely private to the sorts of sweetheart deals like the one Perl described, which was the rental of office space in a San Diego city park for $1 a year. (Which needless to say was not the going rate.) A couple of sources; note dates. Some of these deals have ended, some have not, it’s definitely not BSA policy to no longer accept them. I got my “millions” figure mostly from the military base hosting the BSA enjoys.
Karrde: I don’t. Citation? (I don’t actually doubt it- predatory pedophiles seek out positions of authority over kids for obvious reasons- but I literally don’t remember a scandal like that.)
NFO: Why no distinction? Are you comfortable with male teachers or youth group leaders in groups that include girls?
June 27th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I said I’d comment there, but reading the comments, LabRat already made most of the points I was going to 2 years ago.
Peter: I’ve discussed this before on my blog, but briefly, there really is evidence to suggest that whilst most homosexuals are not pedophiles or ephebophiles, many pedophiles and ephebophiles are homosexual.
Since you explicitly defined “ephebophilia” in the linked article as “homosexual attraction of adult men for adolescent boys” then, yes, by definition, the vast majority of ephebophiles will be homosexuals. Circular definitions are circular. I dunno if you have a similarly stringent definition for “pedophilia”, but if so, then you’re presuming the answer to the question in the stating fo the question itself.
I don’t know that it’s the case everywhere, but here in New Mexico, it’s not exceedingly uncommon or even all that looked down upon for a 15 year old girl to have a 25 or even 35 year old boyfriend. That might also skew any statistics you have: if it’s not getting reported because people don’t think of it as wierd, it won’t show up.
June 27th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Not to pick a fight my first time here, but BSA is a sore spot for me.
kermitt, you are incorrect. While some troops may turn a blind eye, being gay is not allowed:
“We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities.” Boy Scouts of America, Position Statement on Homosexuality, June 1991
Emphasis mine.
The focus when BSA comes up is always on homosexuality, and on possible pedophilia fears, but all of that is nonsense. Based on that poor logic there would be no reason to exclude atheists, too, but they do.
And Peter, I’d like to know where you get that idea that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual statistically. The only real study I found was http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/94/1/41, which contradicts your statement. Your statement on your blog post you linked to is not a “study” at all, but rather an opinion. Do you have anything other than that to back yourself up with?
June 27th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
I’d say I picked the fight. Carry on.
June 27th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
LabRat I’m just gonna resort to agreeing with you via the “yeah! What she said!” motif. THANK YOU.
June 28th, 2012 at 2:25 am
Things here in the UK aren’t that dissimilar, although it is not as openly debated.
For the record I was a cub (scout) only until age 14 when wearing shorts, saying Dib, Dib, Dib and playing with my Woggle began to seriously effect my ‘street-cred (don’t laugh! I used to pretend to have some).
Almost all research (the legitimate and non-inflammatory type anyway) shows that the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by family members or close friends of the family. Yes there have been a number of high-profile ‘institutional’ cases but these are relatively rare (and involve both genders as victims and as perpetrators - see Portugals childrens homes as an example, although predominantly male perp/female victim).
Part of the problem is the over emphasis by the media on those few incidents which have occurred (and that’s not to underrate or dismiss them). Whilst there have been many cases of ‘persons’ in positions of influence using those positions as a means to abuse minors, those cases, seen as a percentage, are rare (the familiar and reprehensible ‘Catholic’ scandals should be seen in the light of just how many priests there are - and no I’m not Catholic). I suspect the policy is, as here, led by parents perceptions and demands as opposed to any religious or political motivation.
The sexuality (gender, religion or ethnicity) of a Scoutmaster shouldn’t have any bearing on their suitability for the role, just as in other roles such as my own profession of nursing, but ‘people being people’ they do (as such I, as a male, am significantly restricted in my role as compared to a female colleague, or even, dare I say it, an openly gay one).
As to the dichotomy of gay female Guide leaders being acceptable whilst gay male Scoutmasters are not? I suspect that has more to do with the (patently false) perception that only men (and all men, at that) are sexual predators.
The consequence here? Well exactly the same as in schools, the dearth of any male (gay or straight) willing to accept the probability of accusations by taking on such roles (teacher or scoutmaster). I fear that this tiny percentage of incidents will merely be used as another reason to sideline the male, here at least.
For myself? I think there should be more ‘individual’ judgement as opposed to blanket banning an entire section of the population on a hyped-up suspicion that some of it’s members ‘may’ commit a crime. Punish the criminals, not everyone who vaguely resembles them in some spurious manner. (The current debacle of ‘Asian’ gangs targeting and abusing hundreds of young white girls here in the UK, with the strident demands blaming all males is an illustration of this madness).
Just Sayin’
June 28th, 2012 at 3:24 am
Sidenote:
Catholic priest pedofilia scandals tend to be about molesting boys.
Protestant priest pedofilia scandals tend to be about molesting girls.
June 28th, 2012 at 7:55 am
It is a mistake to confuse “man there sure have been a lot of pedophile/ephebophilia in the news lately surrounding X group” with there actually being a higher incidence in that group than is usually found in the population. In fact, your hearing about it may actually be a testament to the orginization’s self-policing, in that they weeded out the offender and brought that offender to the light.
And make no mistake, the news media will not permit a scandal in the Scouts, or a church, or a school go unnoticed.
Kaerius said:
“Catholic priest pedofilia scandals tend to be about molesting boys.
Protestant priest pedofilia scandals tend to be about molesting girls.”
Based on what, K? The very first sexual assault case that I ever made an arrest in was on a protestant youth pastor (not “priest”) serial ephebophile who had a specific preference to boys between the ages of 14 and 19. He’s sitting out a 40 year stretch in Texas Department Of Corrections, now (no thanks to a church that threw roadblocks in our way and was in the act of facilitating his escap- er, abscon- er, travels to another state for “treatment,” when I arrived to put him in cuffs.).
June 28th, 2012 at 9:54 am
@LabRat,
what I remembered was a spate of news stories from the 1990s. Likely springing from this investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#1991_Washington_Times_investigation
As indicated by other commentors here, a rash of reporting doesn’t necessarily mean a rash of cases.
A rash of reporting could be (a) discovery of a long-hidden problem, (b) discovery of the troublesome exceptions to general good behavior, or (c) discovery of a rash of recent problems.
Caveat: it appears that BSA apparently had implemented a Youth Protection Program several years before this reporting work was done. Wiki credits them with being a leader in that regard among organizations that deal with children/teens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#Response_by_the_BSA
I am interested in why the newspaper report was done in 1991, when the protection program was already in place. However, the report covered both the years before and after the YPP. (It is an open question whether the headlines were “BSA discovers good way to clean out child-molesters”, or “Many Scouts were molested over the past two decades”.)
I will say that I made a mistake: I assumed the prohibition on homosexual behavior was strengthened or implemented after the abuse problems got attention. So far, I haven’t seen much evidence pro-or-con on that idea.