Narrow-Mindedness Leads To Confusion

I posted not long ago about the battle the Boy Scouts are having with a gay activist group and of course, the ACLU. I made some very pointed remarks and it would seem that this has caused the narrow-minded to change those words and actually use them in a fashion that was not intended. I expect this yet I feel that I should make points clear for the readers who are more open-minded and maybe misunderstood.

The following were particularly disturbing to some:
“If there is anyone out there who honestly thinks that it is a good idea to allow boys to camp out with homosexual men or that atheism is appropriate to teach to our young?” (That should be “IS there”. I posted it that way but wanted to clarify.)

The second part, which was omitted was, then they should find their own Baden Powell and start their own scouting group. Now, I have nothing against homosexuals or atheists. I know people who fall into those categories, some into both. This sentence intended to show that people who openly proclaim these things do not belong in scouting. That is the rule the scouts have. I made it clear that if there are people out there who believe that people who openly proclaim these things want to allow it then they should have their own scout group.

“Would you want your child (though I realize you don’t have any so it is hypothetical) camping with a prostitute? A stripper? A pimp?”

The intent was not to equate homosexuals and atheists to these groups of people. The person who commented wanted to know what was wrong with kids camping with homosexuals or hearing that religion does not affect one’s life. I realized from the comment that the writer would not look at it in a certain way because he sees nothing wrong with those groups. I tried to make the point that parents who do not want their kids exposed to homosexuals and atheists should not be forced to anymore than a person should be forced to be exposed to the other group. I figured that the reader would know that by picking a group some people would not want their children exposed to the connection might be made that even though homosexuality and atheism are not illegal, some people do not want their kids exposed to it and they should be allowed to make that decision.

This was used, out of context to show that I equated homosexuality with pedophilia:
“how their gay scoutmaster taught them a neat trick called back packing”
When in fact, this is the whole quote:

If there is anyone out there who honestly thinks that it is a good idea to allow boys to camp out with homosexual men or that atheism is appropriate to teach to our young? If so, then I suggest you find your own Baden Powell and start your own scouting group. You can call your group the co-ed scouts. And when your kids come home and tell you what fun they had camping out with the girls or how their gay scoutmaster taught them a neat trick called back packing, you will have only yourselves to blame.

If you read it you will see that I suggested that people who had no problem with homosexuals and atheists should start their own group. Then I said that when someone comes home to say something happened then they would have only themselves to blame. The purpose was to highlight that if people are forced to accept what is desired by the activists then if something happens it leaves a lot of people open to suit because they were forced against their will to expose their children to something they did not want. The point being that others should not be allowed to decide what you want your kids to be exposed to. I would ask if the narrow-minded would think it OK to ask the homosexual scout leader (if it ever happened) if he is a member of NAMBLA. Is that OK? Do you think it would be alright? And if they are, may we exclude them or are we supposed to tolerate that too? I just want to know how far your tolerance, and imposition on others, goes.

The unfortunate part is that people labeled me a bigot and intolerant. I am intolerant of many things (stupidity being number one) but I am not intolerant of homosexuals or atheists. The only religion I refuse to tolerate is satanic worship and if I am a bigot for that, so be it. I do not care if someone is an atheist. I just don’t want that small minority having the say over what the majority is allowed to do and I don’t understand how they can say they will uphold the values of a group that has God and religion as its basis. I have no hatred for homosexuals, I just do not agree with the lifestyle. But as a matter of right and wrong I will stand up and fight against people who want to impose their will on those who do not wish to have that will imposed. If the Scouts do not want these folks in their organization then they should not be there.

I don’t think that ANY organization should be forced to admit certain behaviors they do not espouse. We don’t make the priesthood accept women as priests, we don’t make the National Black Caucus have white people in it and we don’t make all girl schools accept boys (though we do the opposite). The fact is that parents, not liberal do-gooders, not the ACLU, and not trial lawyers should decide what is right for their children.

If I am a bigot for thinking that a parent has more rights in what his kid is exposed to than any one else in the world then I can live with that. I only ask that when you quote me you do it in its entirety and you accurately reflect what I say.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

2 Responses to “Narrow-Mindedness Leads To Confusion”

  1. Adam says:

    I said already I agree for the most part on your issues on this subject. I just think your statements, said in jest or not, were inappropriate, and perfect for my Quote of the Week, as you predicted.

    Whether or not you are actually a bigot is hard to tell. The “stupid” part was an exaggeration since we both know you aren’t technically stupid. However, when judging your feelings, I just got to go with what I see.

    I know you aren’t a homophobic, but that isn’t an argument against the low level assumptions and suggestions you made in regard to the subject of homosexuality. I was careful not to take you out of context as you suggest I did, but obviously you see it another way.

    I could very well be a bigot myself as they say, or perhaps narrow minded as you suggest. Who knows? It’s nothing personal between you an I though, you see?

  2. Big Dog says:

    I don’t take it personally and I have no ill feelings. You can’t control what the people write though you can inspire them to do so. But I have no ill will toward you or any of them. I believe people are entitled to their opinion. I might not agree with what you say but I will die for your right to say it.