The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, editorial: “The new policy isn’t perfect, but it is a compromise that allows opposing viewpoints to coexist beneath the same tent. That’s no small feat, given the deeply divergent, passionately held views on both sides of this debate. ... This situation offers an opportunity to show (Boy Scouts) what it means to live in peace — even when not in complete harmony — with one’s neighbors.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air: “The problem seems to be that BSA did not replace its policy of exclusion with a mandate for inclusion. Practically speaking, such a mandate would be tough to enforce, and would almost certainly cause a collapse of membership. Even this moderate change threatens to alienate one of BSA’s biggest partners, theMormons . ... The net effect ... will be to drive religious organizations away fromScouting , to the detriment of all concerned.”
Richard Matthews, Crisis Magazine: “The BSA has chosen to follow Caesar in all things, to embrace the culture of political correctness and moral relativism. It would be wrong to allow nostalgia to blind us from doing what is best for our young people, our families, our church and ... our country. It is time for Christians to shake the dust from their feet and leave the Boy Scouts of America in order to focus on nurturing, strengthening and living our faith in environments that protect the moral, emotional, physical and spiritual health of our children.”
Scott Shackford, Reason: “This is just another piece in our significant cultural shift toward gay inclusion. ... But this change is significantly different (from the Department of Defense ending its ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy and the recent Supreme Court decision striking down state bans on same-sex marriage): It comes at the hands of the organization itself and the culture that supports it, not via government order. ... Regardless of whether a person supports the Scouts’ decision, this is the absolute right way for social change to happen.”
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar