Biased review of an objective article
Reader comment on: The New York Times Discovers the Boy Scouts
Submitted by Joseph T. Berlant (United States), Aug 1, 2010 10:51
What crap. The Times article is objective and factual. How do you sneer at a factual statement that membership has dropped? Membership has been steadily dropping in Scouting for some time and can be verified by the BSA Annual Reports. You also haven't been registered with Scouting for some time or you would know that the adult membership application requires positive statements that the applicant believes in God and is not homosexual. That is not "less clear-cut." The application also requires a criminal background check. I don't believe, though am not sure, that it requires a statement on pedophilia which is more pertinent. The statement on secret files is also accurate. Secret files doesn't mean that you have to disclose the contents of the files. It means that the BSA did not disclose that they were keeping information on volunteers to those volunteers and were not providing that information to sponsoring institutions when "questionable" volunteers registered with new unit, thus perpetuating abuse.
And your comment on dwelling on it is outrageous. Are you saying that abuse should be swept under the rug maybe because it is only homosexual activity? I doubt that is the case but that statement is as supported as your biased comments. The only way to combat continued abuse is to confront it directly. Schools and the Church have tried to do that. The BSA has not done so in the same manner.
And commenting on the NRA as showing that the BSA associates with right wing kooks is entirely appropriate. While many members don't share that attitude the leadership of the NRA certainly fits that description as does the leadership of the BSA.
As far as a so called controversy, how many Presidents have actually attended Jamborees. I know of 3. FDR, Ike (at the last of the 3 Jamborees during his term) and the last Bush.
And I spent 52 years in Scouting as a youth and adult leader before leaving in 2004 because (among other reasons) of the extreme conservative direction of a supposedly non-political organization. The Times was mild in its factual report on the BSA. And why no comment on the accompanying article on the Girl Scouts?
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item