Remember how the far left in America has said since the rise of the Tea Party that the right is awash in "violent rhetoric"? What about the proposition to kill the Boy Scouts like one would kill a rabid dog? That is what a columnist for The Atlantic has implied.
James Hamblin, the magazine's health editor, proclaimed his desire to kill Boy Scouts based on his distaste for their recently re-affirmed policy of refusing to admit openly gay members. Hamblin feels justified in using violent, even hateful rhetoric to attack the Boy Scouts merely because he disagrees with them.
Boy Scouts is an organization that was and is so close to being great. Remember when they had to put Old Yeller down because he got rabies? It's not like he was a bad dog, but he got a brain infection and he tried to eat Travis
Apparently the First Amendment only applies if you agree with gays?
It should be noted that Hamblin posted his desire to kill Boy Scouts the day after another gay activist tried to do just that, kill people with whom he disagrees. Hamblin posted his hate-mongering screed the day after a gay activist entered the Washington DC headquarters of the Family Research Council intent on mass murder.
Hamblin next went on a hyperbolic trip of accusations that the Scout's policy will "cause."
Perpetuating a culture where gay teenagers -- who are already commonly battling notions of inferiority and self-hatred -- can be openly and decidedly told they aren't welcome among a preeminent organization that purports to represent and define a standard of behavioral ideals, is dangerous. It's a decided step back in rejecting the culture of gay bullying. We will see more depression, and more suicide. We'll see more discrimination of every sort, and more hatred.
But notice the absurdity in Hamblin's statement. He says that the Scouts "define a standard of behavioral ideals." But how can one have standards and ideals if one simply pushes them aside for every disgruntled group that comes knocking at your door claiming discrimination? The Boy Scouts aren't breaking any laws and aren’t illegally discriminating and since the Scouts base their ideals on Christian principles, they have steadfast principles quite regardless of whether Hamblin likes them or not.
Another absurd premise promulgated by Hamblin is that forcing the Boy Scouts to allow gays into their organization is somehow a "public health" issue. The Boy Scouts report that as of 2011 they have 3,630,779 members. In a nation of 311,591,917, that is 1.1 percent of the U.S. Population. While three million is a lot of folks, it isn't as if Boy Scouting strikes without warning. One must choose to join the organization. It is hardly an indiscriminate disease that strikes anyone any time. The Scouts decision not to allow gays is anything but a "public health issue" and it is absurd to claim it is.
In fact, Hambln's nonsensical criteria for a "public health crisis" is so loose that one could substitute nearly anything for Boy Scouts in his premise and it would work just as well. Could we say that anyone that isn't a Republican is causing a "public health crisis"? Using Hamblin's meaningless rhetoric we could and we'd be just as correct as he is when lambasting the Scouts.
Of course, Hamblin and all the other gay activists that want to impose their will on the Boy Scouts never do answer to the most American question of all. If you hate the Boy Scouts so much, why not start your own organization, one that will allow gays? That would be a solution in keeping with the American entrepreneurial spirit, wouldn't it?
Lastly, the choice of an accompanying photo for the piece is, well, childish is the best way to describe it. The photo is a still shot from an old movie that features "storied Eagle Scout" Paul Siple who in the film holds up little info booklets explaining the various merit badges he earned. The still shot that The Atlantic chose to feature? Siple holding the booklet that says "Seamanship." Get it? Because gays and seamen go together? Hilarious stuff, Atlantic, hilarious stuff.